GANG PREVENTION AND GANG INTERVENTION

Transcription

GANG PREVENTION AND GANG INTERVENTION:
Preliminary Results From the 1995 Project GANGPINT
National Needs Assessment Gang Research Task Force
A Special Report of the:
NATIONAL GANG CRIME RESEARCH CENTER
PRINCIPAL CO-INVESTIGATORS:
George W. Knox, Ph.D.
Bradley J. Martin, J.D.
Alice P. Franklin Elder, Ph.D.
Shirley R. Holmes, Ph.D.
Robert E. Morris, M.D.
Kathleen Aquino, B.A.
James G. Houston, Ph.D.
Barbara H. Zaitzow, Ph.D.
Edward D. Tromanhauser, Ph.D.
Thomas F. McCurrie, M.S.
John A. Laskey, M.S.
Zheng Wang, Ph.D.
Curtis Robinson, M.S.
Dorothy Papachristos
Jean Chang, Ph.D.
Jodet-Marie Harris, Ed.D.
COPYRIGHT 1995. National Gang Crime Research Center.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We especially thank a number of research assistants who provided assistance to this
project in terms of data entry during the data processing and data reduction stage of the
research. We very grateful for this labor of love from the following volunteers and interns
working with the National Gang Crime Research Center. We especially thank Laura
Rizzardini, M.A., a Ph.D. candidate in sociology, who at the time was a volunteer to the
National Gang Crime Research Center for her tireless work in data reduction and other tasks
in this large research project. We are also indebted to two student interns: Shemei Levi, B.S.;
and Seglinda Lake. Both of these interns at the National Gang Crime Research Center
provided invaluable, reliable, quality work that we could reward only with praise for labor
well done.
We want to thank a great many persons at the 24 different sites in eight states (California,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin). We want to extend a
special appreciation for all of the juvenile correctional facilities and their staff: Terry Timm,
Lincoln Hills School, Irma, Wisconsin; Billy Schlitz, Cook County Day Reporting Center
(DRC); Steven P. Kossman, Superintendent, McLean COunty Juvenile Detention Center,
Normal, IL; and the probation, court, school, and facility staff in California, Indiana, Illinois,
Iowa, and Texas. Several different staff from each of the 24 sites provided much needed help
and support during times of data collection. A complete list of their names and titles will
appear in the final version of this report, as we have not had time at this junction to secure
their permission to identify such facilities. The same holds true for community context
research sites: schools, programs, youth homes, etc.
We assert that this is not an oversight or a slight to the many such persons who therefore
helped make this research possible, rather we have simply not secured their permission yet to
be able to acknowledge their help in writing in this report. Either way, we do extend our
heartfelt thanks to each and everyone of the many staff of these 24 different research sites in
8 states who gave us such assistance.
Finally, we want to thank the over 3,000 youths who helped as well: by being participants
in this anonymous national survey research project.
- ii -
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
George W. Knox, Ph.D., is the director of the National Gang Crime Research Center, founded
in 1990 and currently based at Chicago State University where he is a tenured associate
professor in the Department of Criminal Justice. He has authored several books and
numerous articles based on his 20 years of ongoing gang research.
Bradley J. Martin, J.D., is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Findlay
in Ohio. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Human Resource Development, specializing in training,
at the University of Toledo. He is also an attorney admitted to practice in the state of
Michigan and the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan.
Alice P. Franklin Elder, Ph.D., administers the Office of Correctional Research for the Ohio
Department of Youth Services in Columbus, Ohio. She is a sociologist/criminologist. She
graduated from Ohio State University's Department of Sociology under the tutelage of the
renowned criminologist Simon Dinitz.
Shirley R. Holmes, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Education and Special Education at the
University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Her research interests including bullying, gangs and
deviant behavior among school children, gang behavior in rural areas, as well as prevention
and intervention programs.
Robert E. Morris, M.D., Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics and Senior Physician of
the Los Angeles Juvenile Court Health Services supervises the adolescent rotations at the Los
Angeles Central Juvenile Hall for the University of California, Los Angeles. He also directs
and or consults with HIV education and research protocols for Los Angeles adolescent
detainees.
Kathleen Aquino, B.A., has worked with incarcerated youths in Los Angeles County for six
years. Her specialization is health education services (e.g., HIV/STD prevention, violence,
substance abuse, teen parenting, etc). She is currently working towards a masters degree in
Public Health at California State University, Long Beach.
James G. Houston, Ph.D., is an associate professor of criminal justice at Appalachian State
University. He has over 20 years experience in prisons, jails, and community services and is
author of Correctional Management: Functions, Skills, and Systems. He has been involved
in numerous gang research projects and is currently completing a book entitled Criminal
Justice and the Policy Process for Nelson-Hall, Inc.
Barbara H. Zaitzow, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science and
Criminal Justice at Appalachian State University. Her current work involves assisting local
and state officials seeking the increased use of intermediate sanctions as alternatives to
imprisonment.
Edward D. Tromanhauser, Ph.D., is the chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice at
Chicago State University. His criminological research on gangs dates back to 1981 and
continues today. He has numerous publications in the area of gang research.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Continued
Thomas F. McCurrie, M.S., is the managing editor and a founding staff member of the Journal
of Gang Research and serves as the publications manager for the National Gang Crime
Research Center. He also teaches various criminal justice courses at Chicago State
University. He served for many years as the chief investigator for the Cook County Public
Defender's Office.
John A. Laskey, M.S., is a college instructor and active police officer, serving as a homicide
detective for many years. He has also taught criminal justice courses at Morton College. He
is active in the Army Reserve. He is active in providing gang training to numerous groups:
police, teachers, social workers, academics, etc.
Zheng Wang, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in Administration of Justice at Texas Southern
University. He serves as co-chair of the Houston Mayor's Asian Anti-Gang Advisory Board
and teaches at the Houston Police Academy. He has conducted research and published on
various aspects of gangs, Asian gangs, and organized crime.
Curtis Robinson, M.S., has a decade of experience in the field of juvenile probation in Lake
County, Indiana, where he currently works in a new capacity of developing resources to
confront the prevention and intervention needs of juveniles in his area.
Dorothy Papachristos is co-founder of Communities Dare To Care. Dorothy's efforts
confronting the problem of violence has focused on both community activism and one-on-one
relationships with "at risk" youths and their families. Her work in assisting communities has
been commended at the national, regional and local level.
Jean Chang, Ph.D., is currently a research associate at the Research Institute of Illinois TASC.
She received her Ph.D. from Western Michigan University in 1993. She has conducted a
number of studies in the area of drug and crime, and street gangs.
Jodet-Marie Harris, Ed.D., is a lecturer at Illinois State University where she teaches special
education courses. She has taught in the Chicago Public School system for six years and prior
to this numerous research and service programs in the field of criminal justice.
- iv -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Sixteen gang researchers working together in a national study organized by the National
Gang Crime Research Center conducted a survey of 3,348 youths, 1,994 of which were selfreported gang members. The gang research took place at 24 sites in 8 states (California,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin), and included alternative
schools, juvenile correctional facilities, private programs, and jails.
The gang members included the broad spectrum of gangs found in large urban centers like
Chicago and Los Angeles, but also included most of the well-known gangs known to exist in
America today.
Among the major findings of this research about the gang members themselves:
Background: Most are males (91.3%) 14 to 18 years of age (88.8%).
Family: Nearly all (91.6%) worry about the safety of their family members. Nearly
all (93.5%) of the gang members would like to get a legal job, get married, and have children.
Nearly all (91.2%) felt their family worried about them being killed. A third (32.9%) said
their father never punished them for misbehavior. The gang members seem to have a more
positive attachment to mother than father. A fourth (27.9%) did not get help with homework
at home. A fifth (19.1%) agreed that if parents cannot keep kids out gangs the kids should
be taken away from the parents. Two-fifths (44.1%) felt that some parents benefit financially
from having a child who is a gang member. Two-thirds (69.9%) have had family or friends
killed because of gang violence. Most (83.4%) would not want their own children to join a
gang. Over half (60.4%) have another family member who is a substance abuser. Over twothirds (72.4%) did have a good relationship with an adult who tried to keep them out of gang
life. Most (79.2%) would discourage their own children from joining a gang. Four-fifths
(80.5%) want to eventually get married. Over two-thirds (69.8%) of these gang members
have family members who are also in a gang; the same proportion (68.3%) indicated that in
their gang there are members whose parents are also active gang members. Most (70.8) said
their parents disapproved of their gang involvement; about the same proportion (73.2%) said
they would quit gang life if they had the chance to get married, get a good steady job, and live
somewhere else.
School: Two-fifths (41.6%) of the gang members had been bullied in school, and even
more (66.5%) were bullies themselves. Mostly all (95.1%) had not yet completed high school.
Half had been demoted, even more (88.7%) had been suspended from school, and two-thirds
had been expelled from school.
-v-
Executive Summary: Continued
Religion: A third of the gang members had some religious training (37.1%). Threefourths (75.9%) liked their experiences with church. Half (54.2%) indicated they rarely if
ever attend church though. Still, most (89.3%) said they do believe in God. A third (32.3%)
expect to go to hell, two-thirds (67.7%) expect to go to Heaven.
Mass Media: Less than half (44.2%) felt that television news coverage of gangs
makes others want to join gangs. But nearly two-thirds (65.5%) did feel that gang members
like seeing themselves on television, and in the newspapers (63.9%). Half (51.1%) felt that
gang members would like to be a part of a study where an important professor might be
willing to hang out with them in the hood. Some 42 percent felt if less attention was given
to gangs in the mass media that fewer people would join gangs. A third (35.5%) felt that if
the confidentiality of the juvenile justice system were eliminated, this might prevent some
juveniles from committing a crime. Asked about the effects of intense news coverage of their
gang: only 28.9 percent viewed it as an embarrassment, 72.9 percent felt more members
would get involved in the gang, and 79.4 percent felt more new members would join the gang.
Their Beliefs About Prevention: Only half agreed that programs can effectively
prevent kids from getting involved in gangs or prevent kids from joining gangs. More
disagree than agree with the idea that gang problems can be prevented by school education,
or drug prevention/education, or strict law enforcement. They were most likely to believe job
training and employment opportunities are the best solution to the gang problem. Between
a fourth to a third of the gang members believe some of the most common approaches to gang
prevention/intervention are a waste of time for kids at risk of joining a gang: educational
programs (33.6%), counseling programs (36.9%), and job training programs (25.6%). About
half question whether social workers can have any effect: in reaching out to persons who
might want to quit a gang (43%), in helping kids stay out of a gang (49.1%), or in combination
with other services whether this could have prevented them from joining a gang (52.8%).
Given the choice of program service components, though, most would prefer employment
programs. Three-fourths (74.7%) believe that most people in gangs want out sooner or later.
Three-fifths (60.1%) do not believe a boot camp could influence someone to drop out of a
gang.
Their Own Experiences With Programs and Intervention Services: These gang
members have not been neglected in terms of being recipients of a number of social services
and prevention or intervention services. Half have been in group therapy (52.6%), or in courtmandated therapy (53.7%), or in some counseling program (59.7%). Two-fifths of this gang
population have been in a substance abuse counseling program (42.3%), a job skills program
(44.1%), a job training program (40.2%), the YMCA recreation program (43.7%), and
completed the D.A.R.E. anti-drug program (45.4%). A third (33.8%) had the benefit of a
professional one-on-one tutor. A fourth (28.9%) had parents active in the PTA. Only 19.3
percent had been in the Big Brother/Big Sister program. And only 15.9 percent had ever used
a crisis hotline for help. Thus, few of these gang members actually slipped through the cracks
of society in terms of a complete lack of any social services being available to them.
- vi -
Gang Involvement Through the Human Development Lifespan: By age 11 most (79.1%)
had already first heard something about gangs. Most (83.6%) had first met a gang member
before they were 13. Half (53.9%) had first fired a pistol or revolver before the age of 13.
Half (48.9%) had seen someone killed or seriously injured by gang violence before the age
of 13. Half (50.5%) had first got a permanent tattoo before the age of 14. Half (49.9%) had
first been arrested before the age of 13. Half (52.6%) thought they would be married before
the age of 24. Half (48.1%) had first joined a gang before they were 13. A fourth (25.1%)
of these gang members did not believe they would live to see their 28th birthday.
Personality: Over a third (37.3%) agreed that success is more dependent on luck than
on real ability. Most (80.7%) worry about the future facing today's children. Some 62.1
percent felt that people can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong.
Their Personal Experiences in the Gang: Almost all (84.7%) have five or more close
gang friends. Most (71.9%) were still active gang members, and many of the rest were now
gang associates. Nearly half (46.7%) have tried to quit the gang. Two-thirds (65.3%) have
held rank or leadership in their gang. Two-fifths (44.3%) have been "violated" by their gang.
Over half (60.7%) have committed a crime for financial gain with their gang. Half (51.5%)
have fired a gun at someone over their gang's drug business, but this variable did not vary
much by race. Two-thirds (67.2%) had fired a gun at someone defending their gang turf. Half
(50.5%) have been a shooter in a gang drive-by shooting, motivated more often than not by
concerns for gang reputation. Half claim to be willing to die for their gang. The most
common reason they gave for joining the gang was it offered a "family" for them. Over twothirds (70.9%) have recruited others into the gang, the most common recruitment source being
the neighborhood context.
Their Descriptions of Their Gang Group/Organization: While almost all major
American gangs were represented in the large national sample, about a fourth were Crips and
Bloods; a third were Folks. Over half (58.9%) indicate their gang has a special
language code. Two-thirds (66.1%) indicate their gang has written rules. Most (84.8%)
indicate their gang has older leaders who have been in the gang a long time. Most of the
gangs (74.8%) exist in multiple geographical areas. Half indicated their gang did arise
locally, and half indicated their gang did not arise locally on its own without contact from a
gang from outside the same area. Only a fourth (25.2%) indicated their gang copied the
symbols and name of an out of town gang. Half have had contact with the same gang in
another city. Three-fourths (73.9%) indicate their gang provides money to needy members
in or out of custody. Over a third (35.6%) said their gang has a private attorney used for
defending its members in criminal matters. Some 43.7 percent said their gang keeps an
account that pays for only legal defense. Three-fourths (76.2%) indicated their gang holds
regular meetings. Some 70.3 percent of the gang members indicated their gang had been
around for ten years or more. Some 60.9 percent indicated their gang was an official branch
of a larger national gang, while 40.2 percent described their gang as "homegrown" (emerged
on its own in their city). Over half (59.8%) indicated their gang maintains a treasury. Twofifths (40.9%) indicated their gang collects regular dues from its members; the same
proportion (39.2%) indicated that criminal activity is a required part of gang membership.
- vii -
A number of characteristics these gang members use to describe their gang also tend to
describe authoritarian cults: a third (34.8%) fear to express their opinions in the gang, most
(60.6%) cannot simply leave the gang by resigning at anytime, half (49.8%) indicate their
personal life is known to other members, nearly two-thirds (63.3%) indicate the things the
gang does are approved by a higher up leader, two-thirds do not simply accept everyone who
wants to join, half say their gang does keep a list of the names of its members (50.7%), and
in about half the cases (57.3%) the gang member can be fined for making a mistake. Some
47.1 percent indicated that they did have Asian members in their gang. About two-fifths
(41.7%) report that persons who make big money are looked up to in their gang. Only 12.6
percent indicated their gang never fights with another gang over money. About a third agreed
that making big money is a way of gaining respect among rival gangs.
Gang Behavior While Incarcerated. Some of the gang members had been in custody
for as long as five years. Two-thirds had privileges taken away while in custody. Half have
been in fights while in custody. Half have threatened others with violence while in custody.
Nearly half (46.5%) have fought with rival gang members while in custody. A fourth (27.8%)
have tried to recruit new members to their gang while in custody. A fourth (28.4%) have
carried a homemade weapon while in custody. Over a fourth (29.7%) have threatened a
correctional officer or employee while incarcerated. Most have had one or more disciplinary
reports, a third of the gang members having 5 or more while in custody. Two-fifths (43.9%)
have started a fight with someone or attacked someone while in custody. A
fourth have tried to smuggle drugs into the correctional facility. A fourth indicated that some
gangs use religious or cultural fronts for their meetings while in custody.
Major Life Events For Gang Members: Using a human development lifespan
approach, a series of questions addressed at what age these major life events occurred for the
gang members. A clear pattern emerged here having many implications for gang prevention
and gang intervention programming. The mean or average ages are used here. At age 8.9
they first heard anything about gangs. Age 9.2 were first bullied in school. Age 10.4 first
made the transition to bullying someone else in school. Age 11.3 first fired a pistol or
revolver, and saw first killing or injury due to gang violence. Age 12.0 first joined the gang
and first arrested for any crime. Age 12.3 first got their own real gun. Age 13.0 first got a
permanent tattoo. Age 16.5 their current average age in this study. At the time some of them
were interviewed, those in correctional institutions had already served an average of 8.9
months of their sentence. For those who think they will eventually get legally married to
someone, it will occur at an average age of 24.1 years of age. They expect to die at an average
age of 59.5 years of age.
Differences Comparing Gang Members and Non-Gang Members: In chapter 4,
among the strong differences that emerged from comparing gang members and non-gang
members, gang members were more likely to be bullies in school, and therefore suspended
and expelled from school, have a permanent tattoo, having friends or family killed in gang
violence, much less likely to believe boot camps will flip a gang member, much more likely
to want their own children to be gang members, much less likely to believe the mass media
exacerbates the gang problem, much more combative and disruptive (physical fights,
threatening violence, carrying an improvised weapon in custody, threatening staff, starting
fights, and trying to smuggle in drugs) in custody than their non-gang member counterparts.
-viii-
The greater the level of involvement in gang life: the greater the skepticism such persons
have towards gang prevention programs; the less they worry about the future facing today's
children; the more they believe that traditional programs (education, counseling, job training)
are a waste of time for kids at risk of joining a gang; the more they are likely to have a
background of being bullies in school; the more they are likely to have been incarcerated in
a juvenile correctional institution; the more likely the persons father did not punish them for
misbehavior; the greater the tendency toward dogmatic beliefs, like stereotype; the more these
persons also had the benefit of societal responses (court-mandated psychological counseling
or therapy, being involved in group therapy or counseling programs, etc); the less the
believev"Boot Camps" could help anyone drop out of a gang; the greater their individual
school failure (not finishing high school, being suspended or expelled); the less satisfying
their church experiences; the more they believe they will go to hell in the afterlife; the more
likely they are to have a permanent tattoo; the less likely they are to be female; the less they
believe social work can make a difference in prevention and intervention with gangs; the less
they believe the media has a negative impact; the more likely they are to have had
family/friends killed in gang violence; the more they want their own children to be in gangs;
the higher the substance abuse in their family; the less they believe lifting the secrecy of
juvenile court would prevent additional juvenile crime; and a long list of threat behaviors in
the correctional environment: including - disciplinary problems, fighting behavior, threats of
violence, fighting with rival gangs, gang recruiting while in custody, carrying improvised
weapons, threatening staff or correctional officers, attempts to smuggle in illegal drugs into
the correctional institution, and using religious or cultural fronts for gang operations. All of
these hypotheses were supported from a gang involvement or gang risk analysis undertaken
in chapter 5.
Chapter 6 looked at the gang as a collective social entity it was possible in this research
to identify a number of factors in the nature of the group or organizational structure including
its features and capabilities that were significantly related to low or high gang risk behavior
at the individual level.
The profile that emerged here was that higher threat levels of individual gang behavior
were associated with the following features of more sophisticated gangs: using violence to
enforce internal rules; having a special language code; having written rules; having adult
leaders who have been in the gang for many years; being a gang that exists in several different
geographical areas; being a gang that arose due to exogenous formation (i.e., first arose by
contact with the same gang in another city); having a private attorney used for criminal
matters; having an account that pays for legal defense; having members from the same family
members in a gang; having a treasury; paying regular dues; being required to participate in
illegal activities before being considered a full member; having parents as members; parents
approving of gang membership; being a gang that knows each member's personal life; being
vertically structured gangs (i.e., the things the gang does are approved by a higher up); being
a gang that maintains a membership list; being able to fine a member; and having Asian
members.
A primary research finding here was that the interaction between gang structure and gang
behavior showed a strong clustering effect towards two polar extremes. One tendency was
for the less dangerous individual gang member to cluster around less sophisticated and less
complex social group formations. The other tendency was for the higher threat gang members
to be concentrated in more sophisticated types of gang structures.
- ix -
Having shown how the many ways in which gang behavior is a function of the structure
or organizational sophistication of the type of gang the youth was a member of, the research
also examined the scope and extent of social service experiences. This matter of social
service consumption involved developing a scale that allowed for comparisons of low and
high level of such prior experiences that are commonly regarded as gang prevention and gang
intervention service components. It was shown that this consumption also varied by gang risk
classification, the tendency being for the gang member to have had more not less of such help
from larger society.
Some peculiarities did emerge in examining the consumption patterns of social services
among gang members. This showed for example that those in the greatest need, that is those
significantly less likely to have had high doses of intervention and prevention services, were
Mexican American youths. Other factors were shown to differentiate service consumption
levels.
The final chapter examined the differences between female gang members and female nongang members. There were no exceptions: the female gang members shared much of the
same "profile" that is found among male gang members. A variety of such factors were
described.
Described as well are the conclusions and recommendations of this large scale national
consortium project for knowledge development on gang prevention and gang intervention.
-x-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: The Issues of Gang Prevention and Gang
Page(s)
Intervention...................................... ........ 2-19
Introduction..........................................
2
A Basic Issue: The Public Health Model of Prevention.. 2
A Basic Issue: The Assumption that Gang Problems
Can Be Prevented.................................. 2-3
A Basic Issue: Programs Without Theories Are
Risky Business.................................... 3
A Basic Issue: Some "Gang Programs" of the Past
Did Produce Greater Gang Problems for Society..... 3-4
A Basic Issue: We Are Talking About Criminal Gangs... 4
Understanding the Medical Model of Prevention......... 4 - 5
Gangs Running Gang Programs: A Bad Idea............... 5 - 7
Programs Without Theories Are Risks Not Worth Taking.. 7-8
Primary Prevention in the School Setting.............. 8
Primary Prevention in the Neighborhood Context........ 9
Secondary Prevention: Working With "At Risk" Youths... 9-10
The Community-Based Consortia Approach................ 10
Confused Gang Prevention: An Example of a Program
Without A Theory.................................. 10-11
A Gang Outreach Program That Made Recent History...... 11-12
The Federal Government Funding for Gang Programs...... 12-13
Programs to Establish "Gang Truces"................... 13
A Look at Components of Service in Gang Programs...... 13-16
Why This National Study Was Conducted................. 16
What is Project GANGPINT.............................. 16
What is the National Gang Crime Research Center....... 16
Methodology for Project GANGPINT...................... 17
National Sampling Strategy............................ 17
Value of the Research................................. 17
Researchers Involved in Project GANGPINT.............. 17
The Task Force Approach Used in Project GANGPINT...... 17
Benefits to Host Sites................................ 17
Process for Collecting Data........................... 18
Option to Remain A Totally Anonymous Site............. 18
Summary and Conclusion................................ 18
Chapter 2: Methodology.............................. 19
Formation of the Project GANGPINT Task Force.......... 19
Sampling Gang Members in Multiple Social Contexts..... 19-20
Item Development and Pretesting the Survey Instrument. 20
Sampling Nearly 2,000 Gang Members.................... 20-21
Internal Controls on Data Quality..................... 22-25
1. Covert Observation............................ 22
2. Overt Observation............................. 22-23
3. Zero Tolerance for Data Entry Errors.......... 23
4. Few Unusable Survey Instruments Detected...... 23
5. An Acceptable Level of Trust Was Established.. 23-24
6. High Cognition on the Meaning of the Survey
items Implies Clearly We Are Measuring What
We Purport to Measure......................... 24
7. Built-in Lie Tests............................ 24-25
- xii -
Table of Contents: Continued
Page(s)
Other Issues of Validity.............................. 25-29
Reliability........................................... ....... 29-30
Other Issues of Validity and Reliability:
For Improving Future Research....................30-31
Types of Gangs Represented in the
National Sample..... ..................................... 30
Why We Know The Gang Members Are in the Gangs
They Purport to be Members Of................... 31
Chapter 3: A Description of the Gang Members
in the Present Study.............................. 32-74
Introduction..........................................
32
Basic Demographic Factors.......................... 32
Family Factors........................................
32-38
High Level of Fear: Worry About Family Members... 33-33
Almost All Want A Conventional Lifestyle..33
The Wartime Hysteria Phenomenon............. 33
A Third Never Punished By Father for Misbehavior... 33
Belief in Use of Fear to Control Children... 33
The Love Mother - Hate Father Pattern...... 33-34
Parents as Facilitators of Gang Crime......... 34
1/4 Never Got Help at Home with Homework.......... 34
1/5 Agree: Take Kids Away from Inept Parents..... 34
2/5 Agree: Parents Benefit From Gang Kids........ 34-35
2/3 Report Family/Friends Killed in Gang Violence 35
Most Do Not Want Their Own Children in Gangs..... 35-36
High Rate of Drug Problems in Gang Families...... 36
What Gang Members Would Give To Their Children... 36
2/3 Had Adults Trying to Keep Them Out of Gangs.. 36
4/5 Would Discourage Their Kids From Gang Life... 36-37
4/5 Want To Eventually Get Legally Married....... 37
2/3 Have Other Family Members Who Are in Gangs... 37
Parents Who Are Active Gang Members.............. 38
Parental Disapproval of Their Gang Involvement... 38
Why 2/3 Would Quit Gang Life Entirely............ 38
School Factors........................................ 38-41
From Victim to Victimizer........................ 38-39
Educational Attainment........................... 39
Half Have Been Demoted in School................. 39
Most Did Not Get Help With Homework at Home...... 39
The Attention-Surplus Disorder................... 39-40
Most Have Been Suspended From School............. 40
2/3 Have Been Expelled From School............... 40
The Role of Religion.................................. 40
1/3 Have Had Some Religious Training............. 40
3/4 Have Had Positive Church Experiences......... 41
½ Rarely If Ever Attend Church................. 41
Nine Out of Ten Do Believe in God................ 41
- xiii -
Page(s)
1/3 Expect to Go to Hell, 2/3 To Heaven.......... 41
The Role of the Mass Media............................ 41
2/5 Agree: News Coverage Brings New Gang Members. 41
2/3 Like The Attention They Get in the News...... 41-42
2/3 Like Seeing Themselves in the Newspapers..... 42
½ Would Like to Hang Out With A Professor...... 42
2/5 Agree: Less Media = Fewer New Gang Members... 42
1/3 Agree: Juvenile Coverage Could Prevent Crime. 43
Intense Media Coverage = Intense Benefit to Gang. 43
Beliefs About Gang Prevention: Views From Gang
Members Who Might Know........................... 43-49
½ Agree: Programs Can Stop Kids From Getting
Involved in Gangs................................ 44
½ Agree: Can Prevent Kids From Joining Gangs... 44-45
A Current Real Story on Gang Prevention Services. 45-46
How Gang Members Feel About Five Contemporary
Prevention Issues................................ 46-47
1/4 to 1/3 Think Some Efforts = A Waste of Time.. 47-48
Ratings of the Efficacy of YMCA.................. 48-49
Half Don't Think Social Workers Can Do the Job... 49-50
Program Preferences From Gang Members............ 50
3/4 Agree: Most Want Out of Gang Life Eventually. 50
3/5 Agree: Boot Camps Won't Do Any Good.......... 50-51
The Value of a Real Needs Assessment: Looking at the
Service Utilization Backgrounds in the Gang
Member Population................................ 51-52
A Big Long List of Intervention Experiences...... 52
Crisis Hotline Telephone Services................ 52
High Prevalence of Mental Health Services........ 52
½ Have Been in Group Therapy................... 52
1/3 Had a 1-on-1 Professional Tutor.............. 52-53
2/5 Have Been in Substance Abuse Programs........ 53
2/5 Have Been in Job Skills Programs............. 53
2/5 Have Been in Job Training Programs........... 53
1/4 Had Parents Active in the PTA................ 53
3/5 Had Been Involved in Counseling Programs..... 53
4/5 Never Been in Big Brother/Big Sister Program. 53
2/5 Involved in YMCA Recreation Program.......... 53
2/5 Completed D.A.R.E. Drug Prevention Program... 53
Gang Involvement Through the Human Development
Lifespan......................................... 53-55
Age First Heard Anything About Gangs............. 54
Age First Met a Gang Member...................... 54
Age First Fired a Pistol or Revolver............. 54
Age First Saw Gang Violence Trauma............... 54-55
Age They Were First Bullied in School............ 55
Age They First Bullied Someone Else in School.... 55
- xiv -
Current Age of the Gang Members.................. 55
Age First Got a Permanent Tattoo................. 55
Age First Arrested For any Crime................. 55
Age They Expect to Get Legally Married........... 55
Age First Got Their Own Real Gun................. 55
Age First Joined A Gang.......................... 56
Age The Gang Members Think They Will Die......... 56
Age They Believe They Will Quit the Gang......... 56
Personality Factors................................... 56
Belief in Luck as a Subcultural Value............ 56
4/5 Worry About Future Facing Today's Children... 56
Authoritarian Stereotype Among Gang Members...... 57
The Nature of Their Personal Experiences in the Gang.. 57-68
Almost All Have Gang Friends...................... 57
Age They First Joined the Gang.................... 57-58
What Gang Names Are Represented in This Sample.... 58
What Gang "Nations" Are Represented in the Sample. 58-59
Tenure in the Gang: Number of Years of Gang
Involvement....................................... 59
Current Active Gang Membership.................... 59
Not Currently Active, But Separately Report They
Are Still Gang Associates......................... 59
Surprise: Nearly Half Have Tried to Quit the Gang. 59
2/3 Have Held Rank or Leadership in the Gangs..... 59-60
2/5 Have Been "Violated" By Their Gang............ 60
½ Are in Gangs With a Special Language Code..... 60
2/3 Are in Gangs That Have Written Rules.......... 60
Most Gangs Are Adult Controlled Organizations..... 60-61
Most Gangs Exist in Multiple Geographical Areas... 61
The Indigenous Formation Controversy.............. 61
1/4 of the Gangs Copied Symbols and Names of
An Out-of-town Gang............................... 61
Half Had Contact With Same Gangs Out of Town...... 61-62
3/4 Are in Gangs That Give Money to Needy Members. 62
½ Have Committed A Crime For Financial Gain
With Their Gang................................... 62
1/3 Are in Gangs That Have Private Attorneys...... 62
2/5 Are in Gangs That Keep a Fund for Legal Help.. 62
3/4 Are in Gangs That Hold Regular Meetings....... 63
How Long Their Gang Has Existed in Years.......... 63
Another Test of the Indigenous Formation Issue.... 63
½ Are in Gangs That Have A Gang Treasury........ 63
2/5 Are in Gangs That Require Payment of Dues..... 63
Deadly Violence Over Drug Income.................. 64
Deadly Violence Over Turf Issues.................. 64-65
½ Have Fired At Someone in A Drive-By Shooting.. 65
Motivation for Shooting in a Drive-by Shooting.... 65
½ Are Willing to Die For Their Gang............. 66
- xv -
Page(s)
2/5 Are in Gangs that Require Crime From Members.. 66
A Retrospective Analysis of Reasons for Joining
Gangs............................................. 66
2/3 Have Recruited Others Into Gang Life.......... 66
Where The Gang Recruiting Takes Place............. 66
Characteristics of the Gang As a Cult Organization.... 66-67
Half of the Gangs Have Asian Members.................. 68
Individual and Gang Income: Less 1/3 is Legal......... 68
Do High Rollers Gain Status in the Gang?.............. 68
How Often Gangs Fight With Each Other Over Money...... 68
Does the Accumulation of Wealth Result in Gained
Respect From Rival Gangs.......................... 68
Gang Member Behavior While Incarcerated............... 68-70
Duration of Their Present Incarceration Sentence.. 69
Removal of Privileges............................. 69
½ Have Been in Fights While in Custody.......... 69
½ Have Threatened Violence While in Custody..... 69
½ Have Fought Rival Gangs While in Custody...... 69
1/4 Have Tried to Recruit New Gang Members
While in Custody.................................. 69
1/4 Have Carried Weapons While in Custody......... 69
1/4 Have Threatened Staff While in Custody........ 70
Most Have Had Disciplinary Reports................ 70
2/5 Have Been Violent Aggressors in Custody....... 70
1/4 Have Tried to Smuggle Drugs into the Facility. 70
1/4 Report: Gangs Use Religious Front Groups...... 70
Summary of Findings in this Chapter................... 70-73
Background........................................ 70
Family............................................ 70-71
School............................................ 71
Religion.......................................... 71
Mass Media........................................ 71
Their Beliefs About Prevention.................... 71-72
Their Own Experiences With Programs/Services...... 72
Gang Involvement Through the Human Development
Lifespan.......................................... 72
Personality....................................... 72
Their Personal Experiences in the Gang............ 72
Their Descriptions of their Gang Organization..... 72- 73
Gang Behavior While Incarcerated.................. 73
Major Life Events for Gang Members................ 74-92
Chapter 4: The Differences Between Gang Members
And Non-Gang Members.............................. 74
Introduction.......................................... 74
Strong Difference: Having a Permanent Tattoo.......... 74
Strong Difference: Friends or Family Being Killed
in Gang Violence.................................. 74
- xvi -
Strong Difference: Suspended or Expelled from School.. 74-75
Strong Difference: Beliefs About The Value of Boot
Camps As a Gang Deprogramming Tool................ 75
Strong Difference: Gang Members More Likely To Have
Been in Juvenile Correctional Institutions........ 75
Strong Difference: More Gang Members Believe They
Are Going to Hell................................. 75
Strong Difference: Gang Members Are More Likely to
Want Their Own Children to be in a Gang........... 76
Strong Difference: Gang Members Are Less Likely to
Believe the Mass Media Has a Negative Effect...... 76
Strong Difference: Having Privileges Removed or
Taken Away While in Custody....................... 76
Strong Difference: Having Been in a Physical Fight
With Someone While in Custody..................... 77
Strong Difference: Having Threatened Someone With
Violence While in Custody......................... 77
Strong Difference: Carrying an Improvised Weapon
While in Custody.................................. 77
Strong Difference: Threatening Correctional Staff or
Officers While in Custody......................... 77
Strong Difference: Starting a Fight or Attacking
Someone While in Custody.......................... 77
Strong Difference: Trying to Smuggle Drugs into the
Correctional Institution.......................... 77
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Likely to
Believe Educational Programs Are a Waste of
Time for Kids at Risk of Joining a Gang........... 77-78
Believe Counseling Programs Are a Waste of
Time for Kids at Risk of Joining a Gang........... 78
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Prone
to Stereotype..................................... 78
Moderate Difference: Gang Members Report More
Substance Abuse in their Families................. 78
Report That Gangs Use Religious Front Groups...... 78
Weaker Significant Differences Between Gang Members
and Non-gang Members.............................. 78-80
Non-Significant Differences........................... 80-81
Summary of Major Findings in this Chapter............. 81
Strong Differences Between Gang Members and
Non-Gang Members................................. 81-82
Moderate Differences Between Gang Members and
Non-Gang Members................................. 82
Weaker Significant Differences Between Gang Members
and Non-Gang Members............................. 82
- xvii -
Chapter 5: A Risk Analysis of Gang Member
Behavior Patterns............................... 92-111
Introduction......................................... 92
Gang Theory, Research, and Practice.................. 93-94
The Basic Screening Questions Used in the Gang
Risk Scale...................................... 94
The Raw Scores of the Gang Risk Index................ 94-95
Findings From the Gang Risk Classification System.... 96-97
The Greater the Gang Involvement, The Greater the
Skepticism About Gang Prevention Programs........ 97
The More Involved in the Gang, The Less Worry About
The Future Facing Today's Children............... 97
The Higher the Gang Involvement, the Higher the
Belief That Some Programs Are A Waste of Time.... 97
Bullying: The Essential Resume Item for
Gang Involvement................................. 98
No Surprise: The Higher the Gang Involvement, the
Higher the Juvenile Correctional Experience...... 98
Family: The Role of the Father Revisited............ 98
Dogmatism and the Gang Personality................... 98
Gang Members Have Had More, Not Less Help............ 98-99
Beliefs About Whether A Boot Camp Could Influence
Some To Get Out of a Gang........................ 99
The Higher the Gang Involvement, The Higher the
School Failure................................... 99
The Higher the Gang Involvement, The Less Satisfying
Prior Experiences With Churches.................. 99
The Higher the Gang Involvement, The More The
Person Expects to Go to Hell..................... 99
The Higher the Gang Involvement, the More Likely the
Person is to Have a Permanent Tattoo............. 100
The Higher the Gang Risk Level, the Lower the Female
Representation................................... 100
The Higher the Gang Risk Level, the Lower the Belief
That Social Work Can Be An Effective Strategy.... 100
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Lower the Attribution
of Negative Effects to the Mass Media............ 100
Something Gang Recruiters Don't Mention: The Higher
the Gang Risk, the Greater the Likelihood of
Having Friends or Family Killed in Gang Violence. 100
The Higher the Gang Risk Level, the More the Person
Wants Their Own Children to Be in a Gang......... 101
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Higher the Substance
Abuse in the Family.............................. 101
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Lower the Perceived
Value of Lifting Juvenile Court Secrecy.......... 101
Gangs in Correctional Institutions: The Clear and
Present Danger of Increased Threats Along the
- xviii -
Gang Risk Continuum.............................. 101
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the
Disciplinary Problems in Corrections............. 101-102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Higher the Fighting
Behavior Behind Bars............................. 102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Threats of
Violence Behind Bars............................. 102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Fighting
With Rival Gang Members Behind Bars.............. 102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Additional
Gang Recruiting That Goes on Behind Bars......... 102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Higher the Problem of
Inmates Carrying Homemade Weapons................ 102
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Threats
Against Correctional Staff and Officers.......... 103
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Violent
Behavior Inside Correctional Populations......... 103
The Higher the Gang Risk, the Greater the Attempts
to Smuggle Illegal Drugs into the Institution.... 103
The Higher the Gang Risk, the More Likely the Inmate
Gang Members Are to Use Religious or Cultural
Fronts for Their Operations Behind Bars.......... 103
Summary and Conclusion............................... 103-110
Chapter 6: The Relationship Between Individual
Gang Risk Behavior and the Gang As a Group
or Organizational Structure...................... 111-126
Introduction......................................... 111
The Relationship Between Gang Involvement and
Gang Structures.................................. 112
The Basic Profile of the Gang Involvement
Risk Levels...................................... 112
The Gang as a Coercive Compliance Structure.......... 112-113
Gangs That Have A Special Language Code.............. 113
Gangs That Have Written Rules........................ 113-114
Gangs With Adult Leaders Who Have Been in the Gang
For Many Years................................... 114
Gangs That Exist in Several Different Geographical
Areas............................................ 114
Exogenous Formation.................................. 114
Gangs That Have A Private Attorney Used For
Criminal Matters................................. 115
Gangs That Keep An Account That Pays Only For
Legal Defense.................................... 115
Gangs That Hold Regular Meetings..................... 115
Familial Ties in Gang Life........................... 115
Gangs That Maintain A Treasury....................... 115
Gangs That Require Members to Pay Regular Dues....... 115-116
Gangs That Require Participation in Crime............ 116
- xix -
Parental Complicity in Gang Organizations............ 116
Parents Who Approve of the Gang Membership of
Their Children................................... 116
Autonomy and Social Control in Gang Organizations.... 116-117
Vertically Structured Gang Organizations............. 117
Gangs That Maintain Membership Lists................. 117
Gangs That Can Fine Members for Mistakes............. 117
Heterogeneous Gangs: Having Asian Members............ 117
Gangs That Get Greater Member Mobilization From
Intense News Coverage............................ 118
Gangs That Gain More New Members From Intense
News Coverage.................................... 118
Commitment to the Gang Organization: Dropping Their
Flag for the Good Life........................... 118
Developing a Gang Organizational Scale............... 118-120
The Relationship of Gang Organizational Complexity
to Levels of Gang Involvement.................... 120-121
Summary and Conclusion.............................. 121-126
Chapter 7: Social Service Consumption Levels
Among Youths In Relationship to
Gang Risk Factors............................... 127-140
Introduction........................................ 127
Developing a Social Service Consumption Scale....... 127-129
A Look At Gang Members Only......................... 129-130
The Relationship Between Social Service Consumption
and Risk/Threat Behaviors in the
Correctional Environment........................ 131-133
Factors Differentiating Low and High Levels
of Social Service Consumption in the
Entire Sample................................... 133-139
Chapter 8: Factors Differentiating Female
Gang Members................................... 141-152
Introduction........................................ 141
Comparing Female Gang Members With Female
Non-Gang Members............................... 141
Female Gang Members Are More Skeptical About
Gang Prevention Programs....................... 141-142
Another Significant Difference: The Role of
Law Enforcement................................ 142
Female Gang Members Are More Likely To View
Education and Counseling in Secondary
Prevention Efforts as A Waste of Time.......... 142
Female Gang Members Fit the Profile of Male Gang
Members in Being More Likely to Have Engaged
in Bullying Behavior While in School........... 142
Female Gang Members More Likely to Have Been in
Court-Mandated Counseling or Therapy........... 142
- xx -
Female Gang Members Less Likely to Report Parents
Who Are Active in the PTA...................... 143
Female Gang Members Put Less Faith in "Boot Camps"
As a Gang Deprogramming Tool................... 143
Female Gang Members Show Less Educational
Achievement Than Non-Gang Member Females....... 143
Like Male Gang Members, Female Gang Members Are
More Likely to Have a Permanent Tattoo......... 143
Female Gang Members More Likely to Be Possessed
With the Belief of Their Own Damnation......... 143
Female Gang Members Attribute Less Effectiveness
to Social Workers in Gang Prevention........... 143
Female Gang Members Are Less Likely to Blame
the Mass Media................................. 144
Female Gang Members Are Much More Likely to Have
Had Friends or Family Killed in Gang Violence.. 144
A Fifth of the Female Gang Members Want Their Own
Children to Be in the Gang..................... 144
Female Gang Members Are More Likely to Report
Coming From a Family With Substance
Abuse Problems................................. 144
Female Gang Members Were More, Not Less, Likely to
Report Having Had A Good Relationship With An
Adult Who Tried to Steer Them Away From Gangs.. 144-145
Like Male Gang Members: The Female Gang Membership
Profile Includes A Greater Likelihood of
School Failure................................. 145
Another Commonality Between Male and Female Gang
Members: Threat Behavior Behind Bars.......... 145-146
Chapter 9: Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations............................... 153-166
Overview............................................ 153
Summary............................................. 153-154
Conclusion.......................................... 154
Recommendations..................................... 154-155
Selected Bibliography on Gang Prevention and Gang
Intervention.................................... 156-166
Notes............................................... 167-170
- xxi -
CHAPTER 1
The Issues of Gang Prevention and Gang Intervention
INTRODUCTION
While it is hard to exactly quantify, it is safe to say that during the last four decades as
much as a billion dollars may have been spent on gang research and gang programs.
Annually, and currently, federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services
spend millions on programs designed to treat or intervene with gang members or youths atrisk of gang membership.
What is very curious about the history of gang programs is that for the last four decades
a high level of spending has continued from funding by government agencies and private
donors, and these gang prevention and gang intervention programs throughout the United
States have not had the benefit of a national needs assessment. Implementing programs
without a needs assessment is like traveling in a foreign land without a road map. More
importantly, as will be shortly discussed, when we are dealing with social programs that have
potential impact areas in crime and violence the issue becomes more acute.
In this chapter, we will explain the rationale for undertaking this large scale national
research, called Project GANGPINT and some of the basic issues in gang prevention and gang
intervention. We will outline the importance of a quantitative assessment of the prospects for
gang prevention and gang intervention. We will explain how this effort could be useful in
developing a coherent national policy towards the gang problem that now affects nearly all
American communities in one way or another. Finally, we will explain the basic details of
how the research was conducted. A more detailed description of the methodology is provided
in Chapter 2 which provides details of validity and reliability.
A BASIC ISSUE: The Public Health Model of Prevention
In the public health model of prevention there are only three logical possibilities for "what
is to be done to who". There is primary prevention, this means getting to the person before
they are exposed to the problem. There is secondary prevention, this means getting to persons
who are at risk from the gang problem, but who are not yet a part of the problem. And there
is tertiary prevention, this means getting to those persons who have the problem.
So, applied to the gang problem, we can quickly summarize what the public health model
of prevention means. Primary prevention is the pure version of prevention, it means getting
to kids early in life before they have even heard about gangs or know anything about gangs,
and insulating them against any future contamination from gangs or gang members.
Secondary prevention in the gang context is basically intervention with those who are already
at-risk of gang involvement, these may be kids who have gang friends, who are low on the
ladder of the gang-risk continuum, but who show every sign of potentially becoming a future
gang member. Finally, tertiary prevention basically means "rehabilitation", an effort to work
with gang members and gangs and turn them around somehow.
A BASIC ISSUE: The Assumption That Gang Problems Can Be Prevented
We are willing to assume the affirmative: that in most cases prevention can be effective
in heading off a number of different social problems like that presented by the American gang
problem today. We are even more willing to assume that pure prevention is going to hold
greater prospects for successful progress than tertiary prevention efforts. That is, the greatest
dividend for society is in pure prevention. We would expect less success in tertiary
2
prevention initiatives because we are aware of no "magic bullet" in the long history of
offender services. We do recognize that education and employment are important ingredients
to any tertiary prevention program.
A BASIC ISSUE: Programs Without Theory Are Risky Business
If the social program under analysis were simply that of a program design to enhance the
social etiquette skills of young persons, it is hard to conceive of how the program could harm
society in some way. That is, even if the children slept through the program, or did not learn
from it, all we really have as a logical potential outcome are kids that could have less than
good manners. So if the "good manners" program lacked a theory of human behavior for
inculcating such manners, the risk to society is not very large.
The issue changes dramatically when we are talking about criminal justice, delinquency,
crime, offender, and particularly "gang" programs. If a gang program without a good
theoretical justification for intervention "goes bad", then we are facing more than a problem
of bad manners from "program failures". If a gang program goes bad in terms of outcomes,
then we could be in the situation of producing an even more dangerous gang problem.
A BASIC ISSUE: Some "Gang Programs" Of The Past Did Produce Greater Gang
Problems For Society
The interested reader is urged to examine the chapters pertaining to this issue in An
Introduction to Gangs (Knox, 1995), as we can only provide a sketch of this interesting
American history here. This is the situation where truly "the road to hell is paved with good
intentions", and we might add a true lack of a theoretical model for expecting positive impact
on a hardcore gang offender population!
Two books are available providing espousing the accomplishments of Rev. John Fry in
the 1960's in Chicago. Obviously, the author viewed his work as successful (Fry, 1969; Fry,
1973). Why don't you be the judge.
Here is what Fry did. He tried to coopt the gangs, offering them a "bone", offering them
jobs in running a gang program for their gang members, the context being a church in Hyde
Park on Chicago's south side.
Fry's gang program therefore sought what many programs today seek: the blessing of the
gang to work with the gang. It means recognizing the gang as a bargaining agent. It means
conferring legitimate negotiating authority on a gang organization from larger society: it is
a bad idea theoretically. Why? Because the gang leader then gains in prestige, certain
concessions may be made to the gang, and any influence the gang has will only make that
gang stronger as an entity.
Fry sought to use age-old basically good "service components": educational upgrading,
vocational training, and job placement. We would not argue against the merits of any human
capital development service component: we argue as all in the social professions argue today
that this might be the most powerful way for a nation like the United States of America to
actually continue to be a leading world power --- by producing better types of human beings,
more educated, more skilled, more developed and self-actualized as human beings.
The flaw, then, was in the delivery process and the structure of authority: Fry enlisted the
gang itself in controlling what gets done. The rest of the story unfolds quickly.
Will any criminal gang take government and foundation money that is offered to it?
Certainly. And Jeff Fort, the leader of the Blackstone Rangers at that time which would later
become the infamous El Rukn gang empire, was no exception. Jeff Fort eagerly got involved
in Rev. Fry's new social program for Chicago's south side, something that aimed to
significantly improve the quality of life in south Chicago.
3
So what happened? Well, the area affected is today desolate, and has had three decades
of continued escalating gang violence. What happened to Jeff Fort? Jeff got his first federal
criminal conviction by stealing thousands of dollars in federal money spent on the program.
Jeff also got his first firearms arsenal and his first Mercedes Benz out of the deal. Jeff was
able to catapult his small group into an empire over the years. It would finally take a major
effort by the federal government to squash Jeff's gang. At the time of his last conviction,
which landed Jeff in federal prison for life, Jeff's was on the verge of carrying out terrorism
for hire acts in the USA for hostile foreign countries.
So what happened overall, over time? Jeff's gang benefitted enormously from the largesse
of Rev. Fry's social program. It meant an infusion of hard cash into the gang. It meant
enormous positive publicity for Jeff. Jeff converted that into an even larger gang. Over time,
the name of the gang changed. But what did not change was the crime: the crime threat only
escalated.
A gang has no respect for a chump. A gang will only exploit a chump. A program that
helps a gang become stronger or more effective as a gang is a program that is in the business
of the production of further gang crime and more gang violence.
A BASIC ISSUE: We Are Talking About Criminal Gangs
It is popular in some circles to assume that all playgroups and even fraternities can be at
some times considered a gang. We do recognize that the term gang is deservedly a label, a
label that implies a risk or threat to society. We therefore reserve this label for those groups
and organizations --- both formal and informal --- that are responsible for ongoing crime and
violence. America does not fear "Spanky and Alfalfa" in the "Little Rascals". America fears
criminal gangs. Criminal gangs are groups and organizations, formal and informal, that
benefit from the known and approved criminal activity of its members.
That is why this study sought to find the real gang members in American society today: the
Crips, the Bloods, the People, the Folks, and a very long list of very well known gangs
operating throughout the United States today.
Programs that claim to be working with gangs and only work with low level groups of
alienated kids not yet involved in crime or delinquency are really programs working at the
primary level of gang intervention. There are literally thousands of such programs today.
There are also many programs that work with real gang members. But what has been missing
in all of the work of thousands of persons who work in this worthwhile field is a national
needs assessment that examines the actual backgrounds of a large number of real gang
members in different geographical areas of the USA. The present study sought to fill this void
in our knowledge about what to do and about what should or should not be done about the
gang problem today.
UNDERSTANDING THE MEDICAL MODEL OF PREVENTION
Many persons want to do something about the gang problem, and more often than not the
response involves establishing some type of gang program. There are many, many different
gang programs; some are simply better known than others. Most knowledgeable citizens want
gang prevention programs. Prevention can mean: (1) primary prevention, (2) secondary
prevention, and (3) tertiary prevention. Primary prevention means getting to the person before
they have been exposed to gangs, attempting with a good theory of human behavior to prevent
the person from ever having any involvement with gangs. Secondary prevention means
getting to the person who has already been exposed to gangs, and with a good theory of
human behavior and based on what we know from criminology and delinquency prevention,
4
and attempting to extract them from gang influence and prevent them from further gang
involvement. Tertiary prevention means basically an intent to "rehabilitate", and means
getting to the person who is a self-reported gang member and attempting with professional
guidance based on theory, research, and sound policy to reduce the future crime impact of
such persons.
Prevention carries a somewhat different meaning than intervention. Intervention implies
working with gang youths. Tertiary prevention therefore comes closest to the full meaning
of intervention in that it implies that some type or combination of services need to be provided
to "those in the gang". Given a limited number of resources, the preference assumed by the
social polity here is that of primary prevention rather than intervention. Intervention implies
some ability to "rehabilitate" and the literature on the success of such efforts is truly mixed.
A somewhat less ambitious goal in terms of impacting on human behavior is implied in
primary prevention where the emphasis is on "insulating" someone from becoming involved
in the problem behavior.
As will be explained elsewhere, there are different levels of gang involvement. This is
not simply the difference between "hard core" and "fringe" members. There are leaders.
There exists in most formal organizational gangs a middle management as well. There exist
those who are "honorary" members or "ancianos" (i.e., older less active, almost retired, or
honorary members) from whom less is expected. There always exists the regular "foot
soldiers". But there also exists those who are simply "associates", or wannabes. Knowing
what level of social integration the person has into any gang will vary proportionately to the
difficulty of prevention efforts. The higher the gang integration, the higher the difficulty of
inducing individual behavior change.1
The purpose of this chapter is to take a much closer look at gang programs; their
ingredients (what they do), their structure (how they do it), their goals (what they hope to
accomplish), their target groups (who they provide services to), and their assumptions if any
(when and under what conditions do they logically expect to achieve a positive result based
on the social sciences about human behavior).
GANGS RUNNING GANG PROGRAMS: A BAD IDEA
A good deal of our psychological literature and common sense would tell us that
professional help is needed when it comes to restoring someone to good mental health. That
is to say, an active criminal cannot rehabilitate another criminal nor rehabilitate himself. The
idea behind professional trained expertise is that it is unrealistic to lock someone up and
basically say "go rehabilitate yourself or someone else". On the other hand, the indigenous
approach works well in some contexts, for some persons, at some times, for some specific
purposes. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and its many related forms (NA, etc) is viewed as an
important and positive part of an overall solution throughout most of the literature and in
common beliefs.
There are many examples of gang leaders and gangs being the primary administrators of
"gang prevention/intervention" programs. These gang programs fit a definite profile. Once
the government or foundation funding disappears, they disappear. Once the government or
1
The one exception to this general rule of thumb is when a
gang member, including the very top gang leaders, basically
"defect" (e.g., "flip") and agree to testify against other fellow
gang members.
5
foundations discover they have misappropriated the funds, they disappear. They will resist
to the bitter end any efforts to hold them "accountable" by the means of formal program
evaluation research that involves a complete statistical accounting. They see "program
evaluators" as the "G-men", the "funding five-oh". They want to be able to spend their money
any way they want to. They do not want to have someone tell them they need a good theory
of human behavior before attempting to intervene in the life of an individual regarding the
protection of human subjects (e.g., what could happen afterwards if it really was not a good
theoretically sound idea to do what they did to an individual in their field-service experiment).
How do gangs whose main goal is illegal income from criminal activity end up running
gang programs? The fieldwork of Kotlowitz describes this process as it worked for Jeff Fort
on Chicago's south side:
"By the late 1960s, the gangs had won some standing among the establishment,
particularly with liberals who felt that these young hoodlums, given proper guidance, might
turn their energies and enviable organizing and leadership abilities to bettering their
neighborhoods" (Kotlowitz, 1992: p. 37).
Similarly, for the Vice Lords on Chicago's westside:
"At Henry Horner, the Vice Lords gained a similar standing when a local hospital
bequeathed a former Catholic boys' school it owned, coupled with a grant of over $20,000,
to local gang leaders in the hope that they would open a neighborhood center" (Kotlowitz,
1992: p. 37).
Just like Jeff Fort, the Vice Lords used those assets for something other than community
improvement.
The Federal government has not been a leader in clarifying "what works" in terms of gang
prevention/intervention. It has been a leader in funding a wide number of 1960's style
programs that were specifically targeting gang members or potential gang members. The
Federal government has, over the last three decades, supported a wide number of gang
experiments seeking to intervene in the gang crime problem. Some have clearly and most
certainly achieved dramatic results, but in the opposite direction! That is, some programs
have inadvertently increased the wealth and power, and thereby the persistence, continuity and
expansion, of certain specific gangs. It seems reasonable to conclude that this has also meant,
in its limited context, increasing rather than decreasing the gang crime problem.
The well-intended work of a member of the clergy known as Reverend Fry is one such
example. Whether he said it or not in his applications for federal funding, Rev. Fry assumed
the theory that gang members could be easily "coopted" into leading a law abiding existence.
Rev. Fry hired Jeff Fort, the leader of the Black P. Stones and the Main 21, to help "solve the
gang problem". Jeff Fort quickly manipulated the situation, ciphering off funds, hiring "ghost
workers", demanding "kickbacks" from fellow gang members whom he hired under the
authority of the program, and outright misappropriation (e.g., program fraud).
This sudden influx of hard money into the treasury of Jeff Fort's gang, meant it
accumulated more weapons and more capital with which to eventually enter large scale
narcotic trafficking. Overall, it meant never asking Jeff Fort, nor any other gang member, to
ever sign a "pledge" that they had dropped their gang allegiance, that they would "give up on
crime". Rev. Fry was concerned about gang violence and convinced the Federal government
he could "do something about it". Rev. Fry assumed that offering a context for a "peace
treaty" and a helping hand to these troubled youths would have a positive result. The result
was not positive, the result was the El Rukns: a formidable, highly organized, tight knit,
6
highly selective, extremely violent, criminal gang that still operates today in spite of the
incarceration of its top leadership.
A genuine "bad idea" is to basically turn over assets to a hostile group like a highly
organized criminal gang. Such an example is detailed in the case of the program started in
1976 known as "GET GOING, INC" (Madden, 1993: 7). It was an aftercare program for
"Pintos" (released prisoners) located in East Los Angeles. It was run by the Mexican Mafia
(EME). It was clearly, then, aimed at "tertiary prevention": the hardest to accomplish 2 .
According to the report this program was "actually a front for the Mexican Mafia" (ibid).
Thus, "Federal grants were used to purchase heroin in Mexico" and they used their access to
the prisons to increase the gang presence throughout California. When someone was about
to "spill the beans" in 1977 about this federal fraud, she was killed by an EME member (ibid).
The cases of Jeff Fort and the Get Going Inc program illustrate what not to do. Providing
assets that can be readily converted to the use of the gang (a criminal enterprise) is not the best
idea if the goal is to reduce the gang crime threat problem. Similarly, a Boot Camp or
"Leadership Training" program for some gangs might fit right into the agenda of a gang
leader. A physically stronger and better disciplined gang member is the ideal soldier of any
gang leader. Thus, program intervention cannot be predicated on the "terms" of the gang, but
must rather be based on the "terms" and expectations of the community that must eventually
face the gang problem if it gets much worse. The goals of the law-abiding community and
the goals of the gang may be antithetical outside of the generalized context of "we all want
a better world". In the context of specific issues, community members do not want armed
gangs shooting up the neighborhood. No gang truce or "peace treaty" has yet to surface where
gang members truly turned in their weapons. Someone who thinks the "gang truces" in Los
Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis 1 , and elsewhere have resulted in a sudden permanent decrease
in gang violence should get a police scanner and start listening to their local police calls like
the organized gang-controlled drug-distribution rings do themselves to avoid serious arrests.
Gangs do aspire to control government funding for gang programs and sometimes appear
to be able to reach to the very top of the local politicians for such support. More often than
not, however, it backfires. Such was the case in October, 1985 when the mayor of St. Paul,
Minnesota met with John Scruggs, the local leader of the Disciples gang who was seeking
$58,000 in seed money to start a youth center. The very next day, this same gang leader
executed a 16-year-old female member --- Christine Kreitz --- because he feared she could
link him to a crime that if discovered would jeopardize the government grant. Scruggs was
convicted of first-degree murder and received a life sentence in prison 2 .
PROGRAMS WITHOUT THEORIES ARE RISKS NOT WORTH TAKING
As used here a theory means a model of etiological logic that is consistent with prior
research support and/or common sense application of validated explanations of human
behavior; in this instance, human behavior involving deviance, more specifically, crime and
2
It is the hardest to accomplish because in the extensive
literature on "criminal rehabilitation", no one has yet been
acknowledged as having discovered the "silver bullet", the true
"cure". Some times, in some ways (typically job placements),
their recidivism or relapse or return to prison seems to be
reduced. It is a sufficient probability of potential impact to
work on, however it is a voluntary process that leads someone to
want to accept a job in the first place.
7
delinquency, as well as substance abuse and violence. Intervention or prevention implies an
effort to "interrupt" a sequence of human behavior, at an appropriate point in time, to motivate
behavioral change. This also presumes we are talking about individual behavior; not the
treatment of group behavior. It is not assumed here that an entire group (i.e., gang in this
case) is subject to such change 3 .
The idea that no theory is used to guide program intervention efforts means it is an
atheoretical model. In an atheoretical model, basically anything could happen as a result of
the intervention because there is no logical sequence or justification for "what might happen".
It is a "flip of the coin" situation. It could just as easily go "wrong" as go "right". If it goes
wrong we produce criminals rather than preventing crime. The idea of having a theoretically
justified model of intervention is that the program can logically expect positive impact at a
higher level of probability than a flip of the coin (50/50 chance). A good theory of human
behavior increases the odds of having a positive impact, which is why it is needed.
That any program of intervention or prevention dealing with crime or delinquency --- in
this instance gang crime --- needs a theory justifying what it proposes to do is now one of the
areas of consensus not just among gang researchers, but among almost all criminologists and
social scientists3 .
It is important to have rigorous evaluation research conducted on all gang
intervention/prevention programs. This should include both process (what happens during
the program) and product evaluations (what happens afterwards, the "outcomes"). An
atheoretical evaluation is also not a good idea. The "measures" used in the evaluation
(reduction in recidivism, increased self-esteem, reduced interaction with gang members, etc)
need to be as closely as possible related to the specific theory of intervention being used by
the program.
PRIMARY PREVENTION IN THE SCHOOL SETTING
A number of program approaches have been described in the gang literature that are useful
in the school setting (Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser, 1992). The idea is to combine antigang education with anti-drug education, because so often in the school setting these two
problems go hand in hand. Actually, a third problem --- conflict and violence --- can also be
highly correlated with gang and drug problems. Thus, in the Cleveland Public Schools a
special Youth Gang Unit was created in its Division of Safety & Security4 . The concept
behind this type of added expertise is that by training teachers on gang recognition issues, on
conflict resolution, etc, and working with parents and community groups, that the school has
a fighting chance to curb these inter-related problems 4 . Most teachers do not get training
about gangs in college, however they need it to effectively carry out their mission.
3
Think about it, coopting a gang leader would not even work:
how could a gang leader "order" his underlings to go straight in
the same fashion any similar order comes down to violate the law?
It is illogical and incomprehensible that any such genuine change
could be affected in a level three gang. Certainly, much earlier
work shows that non-gangs or 'pre-gangs', the level zero type of
Alfalfa and Spanky groups, are certainly subject to redirection -- they are easily provided with positive direction, because
overall they do not have a criminal direction as of yet.
4
This is a program in the Cleveland Public Schools.
8
PRIMARY PREVENTION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Recreational activities structured and supervised in such a fashion as to provide a viable
alternative to what the gangs offer in terms of fellowship and "excitement" are a common
ingredient for the primary prevention of gang problems. Boys and Girls Clubs offer such
activities in their drop-in centers as do many others (e.g., the YMCA/YWCA). Special
initiatives such as the "Take Our Daughters to Work Club" work with large corporate
sponsors such as Ameritech and in addition to providing a daily safe haven for kids also
provide some social skills upgrading 5 . The goal is to prevent such "good kids" from ever
joining a gang, and to keep them "off the streets" where the gangs are ever present.
A program that specifically incorporated such recreational activities as well as arts and
crafts for youths, and which operated continuously for 52 years and is therefore regarded by
some as the oldest anti-gang program in Chicago, is that started by the late Daniel "Moose"
Brindisi who was the executive director of the Near Northwest Civic Committee 6 . This
neighborhood based program also acquired its own summer camp, Camp Pompeii, which is
located in Park Forest, Illinois. This program also used the recommendation of Thrasher
(1918) that Boy Scout and Cub Scout groups could provide valuable socialization experiences
as a way of gang prevention at the primary level. Groups like Boys Nation and Girls Nation
also provide such general positive socialization experiences in an adult supervised context of
legitimate social control.
There is a potentially endless list of positive, pro-social, skill-building, adult-supervised
projects, programs and experiences that can be provided to children in an overall strategy to
prevent gang affiliation at the primary level of prevention. At an elementary school near
Chicago's Cabrini-Green, a drum and bugle corp was formed; while the staff volunteers could
handle 80 children ages 5 through 9, some 300 actually applied to use the 36 drums available 7 .
There are basically some very worthwhile programs that need to be funded that are not being
funded. If we really want to do something for youths, then clearly there are a lot of ways to
steer them away from gang involvement.
SECONDARY PREVENTION: WORKING WITH "AT RISK" YOUTHS
A common theme in secondary prevention is to target geographical areas that represent a
"high risk". This has often meant targeting youths from 8 to 16 in public housing complexes.
In such settings, the gang/drug/violence/crime problem is an ever present problem. Project
FLOW (Future Leaders Of the World) in Philadelphia, for example, with $875,602 in funding
for the first 17 months seeks to serve 490 such at-risk youths. As described in its literature,
this program includes a number of traditional and unique service components:
"The program activities developed to benefit these youth will include an education
component involving tutoring, homework assistance, study groups, etc; comprehensive drug
related services such as drug and alcohol education, prevention education, refusal skills
building (Drugs/Violence/Alcohol) and counseling. The comprehensive gang prevention
services will provide mentoring, individual and family counseling, conflict resolution and
anger control workshops. Other activities will include summer programs, sports and
recreation and other related cultural activities including trips to museums, parks etc. Parent
support groups will also be formed to support and stabilize the family structures.
All Project FLOW youth will receive basic Health Care through the Philadelphia
Department of Public Health. Another major component...will be the 'Rites of Passage'
module which is designed to increase awareness and develop skills associated with positive
9
culture and ethnic identities of the youth served"5 .
As should be expected, the FLOW program is evaluated by a University in its area. All
programs with direct contact with youths should be subject to such thorough independent
evaluation.
Some consulting firms have arisen rapidly to the potential market for such services to local
government. It is not unusual for such consultants to be paid $100 an hour for their services
in helping establish such programs 8 .
THE COMMUNITY-BASED CONSORTIA APPROACH
In recent years, the federal funding for gang programs has emphasized a communitybased consortia approach. What it means is bringing together a number of different programs
and services under a larger umbrella-style program; all of the actors targeting a specific
population for intensive prevention services. An example of such a program that bases its
expectations for impact on the prior research and on sound theory is that of the "Mujeres Y
Hombres Nobles" (Noble Men and Women) program of the Los Angeles County Office of
Education. Funded with a $3 million grant that will last five years the consortium will serve
30,000 residents and 350 school age children in East Los Angeles. Its program components
include: "gang risk reduction, drug prevention and treatment, HIV/AIDS prevention,
vocational training, cultural pride and esteem, spiritual and moral rencounterment, mentoring
by Madrinas and Padrinos, intergenerational gang family systems intervention, conflict
resolution and mediation, education and community awareness, and linkages to services".
This program is unique in being capable of dealing with the intergenerational gang family
situation. Unfortunately, it is a not infrequent problem apparently, and one of the least
researched aspects of the gang/family area. The Mujeres y Hombres Nobles program
summary gives an example:
Teen Angel Magazine published exclusively for California gang members, regularly
publishes pictures submitted by teen mothers of their children and babies dressed in gang
clothing and giving gang hand signs; these teen mothers are unknowingly enculturating a new
generation of gang members.
CONFUSED GANG PREVENTION: AN EXAMPLE OF A PROGRAM WITHOUT
A THEORY
The Gang Project described here was funded by the Administration on Children, Youth
and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It had as its
first broad purpose to "develop an action plan in the city which identified the community's
vision for a gang-free city, the obstacles blocking that vision, new directions to take to
overcome the obstacles, and implementation plans for each new direction". The strange idea
here was that the gang problem could be solved with an administrative solution: some master
plan that would take a couple years to develop. As the program "unfolded", it changed its
goal away from "gang-free" to that of having gangs be less violent in their city. To quote their
final report to DHHS:
"A shift occurred in the original language of the goals from 'gang free' to one that
focused on creating a climate in which gangs did not act in violent ways. It was felt that some
hypocrisy would be in place if our goal was gang free but we said nothing about 'gangs' such
as Rotary or Kiwanis or Lions."
5
Project FLOW, Mayor's Office of Community Services, 101 N.
Broad Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
10
The project offered "training" of an unspecified nature to community groups and nonprofit
staff, which along with "community meetings" were not well attended 6 . At some point, the
project engaged in direct service to youths in schools and juvenile corrections; using former
addicts and ex-gang members to speak to them on --- presumably --- the evil of gangs and
drugs.
So what happened at the end of the project funding period? No such coherent strategic
plan was ever actually written. The final report included a lot of vague generalities about the
need for community empowerment. It evaluated itself, and felt it did a good job.
That is the danger of an atheoretical program: it can literally change its goals, which must
be viewed with some criticism. The Project was probably not the best use of public monies.
It probably sounded good to Washington (holding community forums, interfacing various
agencies, etc), but the Project lacked any coherent theory and then changed its goals and
began doing direct service work.
A GANG OUTREACH PROGRAM THAT MADE RECENT HISTORY
This is another federally funded program, but which as an "advocacy organization",
receives funding from a variety of other sources especially foundations. A highly educated
police officer who is also a gang researcher first told me about this program in his city. The
word among police was that the program served as a site for gangs to hold their meetings and
conduct their gang business. This program bills itself as a "gang outreach program". There
is no theory of just how, exactly, it would prevent anything.
The idea itself was peculiar:
not a traditional "detached worker outreach program" to individual gang members, for which
there are a lot of materials that can be used for training such detached workers; but rather it
sought outreach to the "gang" itself. Such on-line program service personnel would clearly
have to be organizational and group psychology experts; which of course they were not, they
were indigenous staff, paraprofessional at best. What is the single most important criteria of
program success in such detached worker programs is the ability to increase a more law
abiding and prosocial lifestyle, and to reduce a delinquency and criminality lifestyle. Most
prior evaluation research on such detached worker programs has not shown the ability to
actually accomplish this goal (Mattick and Caplan, 1962; Klein, 1968; Miller, 1974; Quicker,
1983).
In the program being described here, what it did do is basically turn the program over to
the gang. To quote from its final report: "Access to Gang Leadership: staff know the gang
leadership in the city; some of the program staff have been recruited from this leadership".
The program provides its staff with beepers and car radios, and thus claims it is a "round the
clock" operation. The program employs active gang members, and "has hired most of its
junior staff from the ranks of gangs in" the city. Without any indication of training for such
staff, the report goes on to claim how it provides gang outreach, case management, crisis
intervention, family services, school services, some type of "ministry to gang members" 7 ,
6
This may have been due to a program lacking a "needs
assessment".
7
This should have been a "red flag" to the federal agency
providing funding in the first place: the government has no
business subsidizing "street versions" of religious
prosyletizing. What religious doctrine was being "pushed" to
these gangs?
11
security work at public events, and prison work. Hiring gang leaders and active gang
members under the guise of working with the local gang scene somehow gets translated into
establishing a Gang Council and sponsoring a gang conference.
Here we see the real danger of an atheoretical program evaluating itself: of course, it
claims to literally have walked on water. It provides a number of statistics which on their face
would appear to be "doing something": during 1991, 235 meetings with gangs or gang leaders
to prevent conflicts (does that include meetings the gang members themselves who work in
the program have between each other, we don't know), 156 mediations of gang-related
conflicts at schools (does that include the conflicts in its own school program that it runs, we
don't know), 195 mediations between gangs in conflicts on the streets.
What we have here are paraprofessional at best who while indigenous to the city, are
employed in a social service and a crime prevention and public safety function, who might
potentially be part of the problem itself. The media coverage gained by some of the gang
leaders has certainly helped them to promote their gang as an organization "about Growth and
Development" --- a code word for Gangster Disciple --- so it provides a public relations
function for the local gangs. There is nothing in the program report documentation about
success in reducing drug use or drug sales, of actual reductions in gang violence, or actual
reductions in gang membership involvement. In fact, one would have to postulate from the
declarations in this report back to the federal government that gang membership probably
increased --- at least for those gangs whose leaders were put on the payroll. It is comparable
to the early Jeff Fort and Rev. Fry phenomenon 9 .
Needless to say this program did not have, as is apparently required of many programs
receiving federal funding, any external quantitative process and product program evaluation.
But it continues today. Is it possible that the beepers and car phones given to these gang
members were used in anything other than "making peace"? Is it really a good idea to have
gang members provide "security work" for concerts as this program does, is that not similar
to hiring the Hell's Angels at Woodstock? What is the theory here for such a program that it
is going to reduce the gang problem? It is certainly not well articulated.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR GANG PROGRAMS
The federal Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program was authorized by legislation in 1988
(section 3501 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988). The federal Youth Gang Drug
Prevention Program awards funding to actual gang programs "to prevent and to reduce the
participation of youth in the activities of gangs that engage in illicit drug-relate activities and
to promote the involvement of youth in lawful activities". The federal agency having the
responsibility to administer this funding is the Administration on Children, Youth and
Families (ACYF) and is managed by the Family and Youth Services Bureau, both within the
Department of Health and Human Services. Since it first began in 1989, this federal initiative
has provided over $50 million dollars in funding to over 100 different gang prevention
programs.
The FYSB Youth Gang Prevention Program has issued a number of printed newsletters.
The Connections newsletter provides updates on various programs funded by FYSB and other
features such as its National Conferences. At any particular time there are a sufficient number
of such federally funded programs to hold a National Youth Gang Conference. The First
National Conference was held June 5-7, 1991 in Alexandria, Virginia; the Third such
conference was held in 1993. A number of other conferences have been funded by the FYSB
as well.
Many of the programs funded by this federal initiative publish short guidelines in the
Connections newsletter. Much very useful and important information is published in the
12
newsletters 8 . It promotes practitioner/researcher interaction; gives advice on hiring gang
outreach workers, provides highlights of gang programs in the news; and contact information.
PROGRAMS TO ESTABLISH "GANG TRUCES"
A number of efforts have been made historically to establish "gang truces". Typically
these are ad hoc arrangements and do not reflect a formal program per se. Some programs
seek "mini-truces" on an individual level, for example in the context of a single school, where
this kind of gang program service is sometimes called "gang mediation". The Youth For
Christ evangelical group in Chicago has been holding its "United Nations" meetings for a
decade: bringing rival gang members together in groups representing over twenty different
gangs over time (Mc Lean, 1991) - the goal being to allow the individuals to appreciate the
Christian faith 10 . Such counseling and prosocial advice where the unit of service delivery
being targeted is the individual does not seek to work with the gang as a collective enterprise,
but rather simply seeks to apply conflict resolution skills at the level of the individual. Such
work at the level of the individual is certainly worthwhile. But what "gang truces" involve
typically are not services, nor are they formal programs accountable for their actions, and the
unit of service delivery target is the entire gang as a collective identity. A common theme of
such truce efforts is to bring together warring or rival gangs and unite them under a larger
umbrella organization. The position taken in the present book is that such endeavors are
rarely successful and are indeed risky. Supporting the present position that negotiating with
gang leaders basically means that through such official recognition the gang becomes stronger
are a number of other analyses (Haskel and Yablonsky, 1982) and more recently Kodluboy
and Evenrud:
"It is probable that mediation with gang members or gang leaders may sometimes be
necessary to forestall immediate violence or prevent loss of life. It is also probable that such
mediation increases the risk of validating the gang as a legitimate social entity, thus buying
short-term peace at the price of long-term persistence of the gang (Goldstein and Huff, 1993:
p. 285)."
Still, it is not hard at all to find those who felt the "truce" between the Crips and the Bloods
in Los Angeles was a major positive development11 ; just as it is not hard to find the skeptics
either. We have found no such lasting truce between gangs anywhere. What we have found
are ways for gangs to gain additional power, prestige, and recognition in the process of
conning otherwise responsible adults into believing that criminal organizations can
rehabilitate themselves.
A LOOK AT COMPONENTS OF SERVICE IN GANG PROGRAMS
The full and complete book the history of gang programs has yet to be written. It cannot
be accomplished in this report either. Some of the programs that had the best theoretical basis
for prevention were those making use of the social control that comes from involving the
family of the youth in the process 12 . Such programs like the FOCUS Project in Washington,
D.C. provided support group activities, family counseling, home visits, working with other
social service agencies and police, and sought to prevent gang involvement and drug-abuse
and with some promising results. It enlisted the parent in the effort to impact on the children
in a systems approach. The good news is that there are a number of such positive impact
8
The Connections newsletter is published and distributed by
the Cosmos Corporation, 1735 Eye Street, NW, Suite 613,
Washington, DC 20006.
13
programs throughout the United States. The bad news is that after the federal funding runs
out after one or two years, the program services stop.
The federal approach to gang prevention and gang intervention has been piecemeal and
segmented. It may not even involve true competitive bidding, that is: politics still seems a
factor in who gets funding. We never hear of how knowledge development is improved by
these programs. We already know some such program models and services can truly have a
positive impact. And yet, still today, such specific services are not standardized nor does the
funding agency provide an overall summary of "what works". And it certainly does not do
a very good job at disseminating this needed information to the communities that could
benefit from it: just in case they wanted to do something without federal funding.
Examining a number of such current federally funded gang prevention programs the typical
program that operates at the primary level of prevention has the service components shown
in Figure 1. By and large, the vast majority of these service components are indeed traditional
social service approaches and can be found in many correctional aftercare programs with
similar program goals (e.g., to reduce recidivism). Thus, they can be assumed to be useful
as well in secondary and tertiary prevention programs.
A couple of the services in Figure 1 stand out as being uniquely related to the gang-drug
problem. The "court advocacy" is not a new service, it was tried throughout the 1960's and
1970's and before. It simply motivates the client to participate in the program. But on a large
scale, it basically means supplementing the resources of the juvenile public defenders office.
Logically, it works against "Weed and Seed" and the strict accountability concept. Because
through this service component, some juvenile offenders will get off the hook via the advocate
from the program. It is a cheap way to generate clients: they may have to participate in the
program as part of their probation agreement. But clearly, if the youth is at the level of being
involved in the juvenile court system for delinquency, the program is operating for that youth
at a secondary or tertiary level of prevention --- not a primary level of prevention.
In none of the programs reviewed as funded by the recent federal initiative was there any
breakdown by goals in terms of numbers of youths to be served at these various levels of
prevention/intervention. This is truly remarkable in light of the vast accumulation of program
knowledge and information in federal agencies. What this may imply is that the federal
initiative should be dramatically changed.
It should provide a model service
intervention/prevention program and in its Requests For Proposals solicit who wants to run
this specific type of Model Program (with no deviation, no changing of goals, etc). The
evaluation research component would then be meaningful from a comparison and regional
point of view. The federal initiative might then take on more structure and consistency.
Currently, the initiative could be summarized as Requests for Proposals that solicit "do what
you want to do....and if it sounds interesting we'll give you the federal money for it".
There are, however, important conceptual and policy issues in gang programs, especially
the current federal initiative that need to be resolved. The foremost is comparable to the credo
that physicians use: above all, do no harm. That is, whatever is done, make sure the program
does not in fact increase the gang problem or the drug problem or the violence problem. The
fact that very rigorous outcome evaluation research is sorely lacking in the current federal
initiative unfortunately does not allow us to rule out such a hypothesis. Where that "reverse
intended effect" hypothesis needs to be tested first are in those controversial programs that are
substantially more than gang outreach, they may be subsidies for the gang (e.g., giving
beepers and cellular phones to active gang members and leaders hired by the program).
14
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL PROGRAM SERVICE COMPONENTS IN GANG PROGRAMS
Program Service Component
Referrals
What it hopes to accomplish.
Send the youth to a traditional
service agency for specific type
of assistance (e.g., health,
addiction, housing, etc).
Individual counseling
Motivate youth to change
beliefs and behavior.
Group counseling
Apply positive peer culture
to facilitate individual change
in beliefs and behavior.
Family counseling
Apply the social control of
family members to facilitate
individual change in beliefs
and behavior.
Peer/adult mentoring
Through one-on-one volunteers
or staff, match with youth to
motivate or reinforce change in
beliefs/behavior.
Educational Upgrading
Increase the academic skills of
the youth. TECHNIQUES: tutoring,
independent study, homework
assistance, computer instruction, etc.
Cultural enrichment
Increase youth awareness of the
larger social order to motivate
respect for conformity. TECHNIQUES:
Figure 1: Continued
visits to museums, higher culture
events, outings, etc.
Job placement
Motivate youth to seek legitimate
opportunities for achievement.
TECHNIQUES: subsidized
employment, guaranteed summer job,
meaningful work experience, etc.
Court Liaison Advocacy
Seek leniency in juvenile court
for clients in return for their
program involvement.
15
Parenting skills
Program Service Component
Increase the knowledge and skills
to nurture children.
What it hopes to accomplish.
AIDS/HIV prevention
Increase the knowledge of health
risk behavior and motivate youth
to avoid such risks. Rites of
passage awareness Increase the
awareness of youth about human
development, the increased
responsibilities over The lifespan,
and to celebrate their own manhood
and womanhood development.
Adult supervised recreation
Drop-in centers, day camp, etc.
AKA: Social Recreation. Many such
examples: Health & Physical
education.
Parent Empowerment
Motivate parents affected by gangs
and drugs to take back control of
their homes, children, and
neighborhoods. (E.G., Operation
Parent Sweep).
Why This National Study Was Conducted
The sixteen researchers agreed together and collectively that more hard data was needed
on gang prevention and gang intervention, particularly looking at the real experiences of real
gang members. The effort planned was to be called Project GANGPINT and became a major
national gang research project undertaken without government or private sector funding.
What is Project GANGPINT?
Project GANGPINT is the acronym for "Project Gang Prevention/Intervention", a large
national study of 5,000 gang members. This consortium of researchers has been organized
by the National Gang Crime Research Center. The primary purpose of this research and
service is to provide the hard data for purposes of a national needs assessment.
What is the National Gang Crime Research Center?
The National Gang Crime Research Center was established in 1990 and its track record
of organizing, completing, and disseminating useful information from national and local gang
research projects has steadily expanded over the last five years. The Center publishes a
professional quarterly journal, called the Journal of Gang Research. The Center provides
assessment, research, and training services about gangs and security threat/risk groups. A
copy of the Annual Report of the Center is available upon request, documenting the positive
track record of service to criminal justice agencies and communities throughout the United
States.
16
Methodology for Project GANGPINT
A lengthy process of item pool development and survey research instrumentation and
pretesting was involved. All members of the research consortium --- a national group of
distinguished researchers --- contributed their hypotheses. The result is an anonymous
questionnaire designed for use on populations at risk of gang membership. No names or
personal identifying information are sought in the survey process, thus the lack of invasive
data gathering means no threat exists to human subjects. Further, no release forms are needed,
as this is a totally voluntary and completely anonymous technique for data collection.
National Sampling Strategy
The sampling strategy for Project GANGPINT is to identify sites in all major geographical
jurisdictions of the continental United States. Sites previously used by the National Gang
Crime Research Center (jails, schools, private programs, juvenile centers, etc) on previous
national consortium research projects will also be used for Project GANGPINT.
Value of the Research
Currently, such a national needs assessment does not exist for gang prevention and gang
intervention. This means that a vacuum exists and no empirical basis exists for purposes of
planning and developing policies and procedures to de-escalate problems associated with
gangs and security threat groups. Thus, Project GANGPINT will provide the first such
national needs assessment in this regard.
Researchers Involved in Project GANGPINT:
We are a group of responsible criminological researchers with a positive track record of
both good scholarship and good services to the agencies we work with. We are not being paid
for this research, it is a probono effort. In fact, researchers had to pay many expenses out of
their own pockets for this research. No one received any supplemental salary for the research
reported here. The reason is easy to understand: we did not seek funding for this project, nor
did we receive any. Supplies, photo duplication, amenities used to reward respondents,
postage, communication, and travel were expenses assumed by the individual researchers
alone.
The Task Force Approach Used in Project GANGPINT
The researchers involved in Project GANGPINT are providing their services, skills, and
work in probono fashion: they are not paid, rather they are doing this work as a public service.
This approach is therefor a means of carrying out major large scale national research without
specific funding for it from government or other sources. This approach also allows for being
able to rapidly disseminate findings and results.
Benefits to Host Sites
Host sites are those criminal justice agencies (jails, programs, juvenile detention centers,
prisons, long term juvenile correctional institutions, schools, etc) who allow a Project
GANGPINT researcher to collect local data. A host site receives a major service free of
charge: a customized local research report based on an analysis of that local data collected;
this is a confidential report for the eyes of the site administration. Project GANGPINT
provides this local, rapid, useful feedback at no expense and as a public service to the host
agency.
17
Process For Collecting Data
The best process we have found that works best in secure settings is to rapidly distribute
the surveys as quickly as possible. Thus, if it takes an hour to get all the surveys distributed
to the population, at the end of distribution, the local research simply returns to the first point
of distribution for collection. Thus, we have been able in this process to survey an entire
medium sized jail in about an hour. We have been able to survey the largest juvenile
detention facility in the United States in two hours using this technique. Thus, there is very
little disruption: indeed, it provides the respondents something positive to do.
Option to Remain A Totally Anonymous Site
A host site can remain completely anonymous: that is, we do not have to identify it in the
acknowledgments section of the final report. About a month before the report is to be
released, a copy is provided to the host site for review: at which time the host site is asked
whether it wants to be acknowledged (names, titles, etc). If we do not hear from the sites after
providing the advance copy of the report and asking them if they want to be acknowledged,
then we assume they want to remain anonymous, and thus we will not identify the site or staff.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Today much continuing interest exists in the hope for reducing the gang problem in
America. Much government and private money is being spent on various programs and
efforts towards that end. As we have seen in this chapter, a program for prevention or
intervention with gang members requires a higher level of responsibility in terms of
accountability: because there is the risk that the program could "go bad", that is, have reverseintended effects.
The present research involves nearly 2,000 gang members who were surveyed from coast
to coast, from Los Angeles, to North Carolina; from areas are far north as Wisconsin, to areas
from as far south as Houston, Texas. Some 24 different social environments were studied in
eight different states to tap into the gang population of the United States. We feel we have
learned something in this research and we are sharing it with you here.
A detailed explanation of the methodology for this research is provided in the next chapter.
Some discussion is in order about the structure of this study. The table of contents
describes the different chapters in this book, and the diversity of ideas. Each chapter includes
boxed "vignettes" solicited from the various researchers in response to their views on WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE in America to deal with the present gang problem. As will be seen,
there are many rather complex issues involved in the study of gangs, and particularly in
addressing the matter of gang prevention and gang intervention. The reader is advised to read
the endnotes, provided at the very end of the book (consult the table of contents). A full
bibliography of relevant books, periodicals, articles, and monographs discussed throughout
this study is also provided.
18
Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
This section of the report describes how the research was conducted, the pretesting of the
instrument, validity, and reliability issues.
FORMATION OF THE PROJECT GANGPINT TASK FORCE
The Project GANGPINT research task force was formed in 1994 and involved invitations
to a number of gang researchers and experts to pledge their support and labor in a unique
knowledge development project. It was agreed in advance that this would have to be an
unfunded type of research, because in the current overall state-of-the-art gang research there
has been little comparative research done on gang prevention and intervention, and literally
nothing that could speak to the national picture. Developing a national needs assessment for
gang prevention and gang intervention has not, in other words, been a research priority area
for funding sources. It was agreed that to really understand the multifaceted nature of gang
life itself, that multiple social contexts would have to be studied (i.e., schools, jails, juvenile
facilities, programs, etc). It was agreed that in addition to being a research project, that this
would also be a probono service project as well: specifically, that we would provide a detailed
"site report" reflecting a complete analysis of all data to each and every site that cooperates
with our research efforts. The objective of these "site reports" was to provide useful rapid
feedback describing trends and important findings about the site population. The site
populations included schools, jails, juvenile correctional facilities, etc.
It was also agreed that to be able to speak effectively to the wide variety of hypotheses
that a large task force group might want to test, that a very large national sample would be
needed. It was agreed by the Project GANGPINT research task force members that this study
would have as its goal the inclusion of at least two thousand (N = 2,000) self-reported gang
members in various parts of the United States.
In this type of large scale research there would be hard costs that could not be avoided:
travel, lodging, photo duplication, honorariums to the respondents, etc. It was agreed by Task
Force researchers that any individual expenses in travel and per diem and time would be
donated to this project, that is the researcher would basically pay his or her own way to the
extent they were able to do so. No one was to be paid any salary for work. Thus, all time
devoted to this project was not reimbursed in any sense. Further, only hard expenses spent
on the respondents, involving honorariums (cookies, potato chips, etc) would be expenses that
the Task Force would collectively agree to share in a equal fashion.
It is difficult to estimate the amount of labor and effort that went into this project, but is
was obviously extensive. Of course, the researchers in their capacities as educators were able
to use some small resources involving photo duplication from their respective universities.
Outside of this limited assistance, no federal, state, or other government or private foundation
support existed for this project. It was, in short, a research team designed to accomplish a
goal as an end in itself: not for compensation, but because it needed to be done.
SAMPLING GANG MEMBERS IN MULTIPLE SOCIAL CONTEXTS
One of the goals of the Project GANGPINT research task force was to ensure that gang
members were studied in a variety of social contexts. The universe became easy to define
when we asked the general question: where could we most likely find some gang members
19
today? The first answer was: custody, those in jail, etc. The second answer was schools and
the community. Thus, at an early stage in the research process various social contexts were
identified, contacted, and persuaded to cooperate with our research mission.
The types of social contexts used in the Project GANGPINT task force research therefore
consists of the following:
(1) Alternative schools in the midwest,
(2) Juvenile correctional facilities in seven states (California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio,
Texas,
and Wisconsin),
(3) Jails in Illinois and North Carolina,
(4) A state boot camp program in Texas.
(5) Private residential facilities for youths at risk of gang membership in Iowa, Indiana, and
Ohio.
ITEM DEVELOPMENT AND PRETESTING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
All members of the Project GANGPINT research task force at an early stage in the
research process developed specific hypotheses they would explore and test. This meant that
every researcher developed and submitted specific questions or items to be included in the
survey instrument. These questions in the preliminary item pool were then distributed for
review, critiqued, revised and then finally tested in a pretest of the finalized survey instrument.
With 16 different researchers in this national gang research consortium, obviously there were
many different types of hypotheses that would be explored in the research, even though the
primary theme examined aspects of gang prevention and gang intervention generally.
The pretesting of the instrument was conducted in a high gang density juvenile
correctional institution in the midwest. This is a famous site for the Chicago-school of
criminological research. The site staff were very skeptical that the youths could in fact
complete the survey, but most were able to complete it in a very short period of time. In fact
this facility containing nearly 500 youths in short term detention were completely surveyed
in a very short period of time: the researchers were able to get in and out of the facility within
a two hour period. Several members of the research task force were present for this
pretesting, they made observations, and debriefed some of the respondents (i.e., asking them
to report questions they did not understand, words they did not understand, phrases they did
not understand, etc) and some of the staff. Through this process the survey instrument was
further modified to make necessary changes identified from the pretesting. Actually very few
changes had to be made. The pretest sample was known in advance to contain gang members.
We expected that there would be some respondents who would not know about some of the
detailed issues of gang life: any non-gang member would not be privy to the socialization and
training afforded by a gang (i.e., learning its language or subcultural argot, its rules, its code,
etc).
After the survey instrument was field tested, we felt comfortable as described in the
section on validity below that the instrument was capable of measuring what it sought to
measure.
SAMPLING NEARLY 2,000 GANG MEMBERS
The type of research that samples only from one city, or one state, has historically been
a source of confounding and confusing research results in the gang research arena. We felt
we needed to capture gang members where they can really be found: on the street, and in
custody. Our research strategy was one that therefore focused on a variety of social contexts
in order to obtain a sample of over 2,000 gang members. Mostly, we sought to have
20
representative national data and therefore we focused our research strategy on multiple states,
in large and small jurisdictions.
Figure 2 below shows the type of social context by the sample size of gang members from
these sites in five states.
FIGURE 2
TYPE OF SOCIAL CONTEXT BY SIZE OF GANG SAMPLE
Self-Reported Gang Member?
Missing
NO
YES
******* ******* ******
Chicago, Illinois
Juv. Det. Center
30
Gary, Indiana
Juv. Det. Center
2
Davenport, Iowa
Private Youth Center 0
Rock Island, Illinois
Arrowhead Ranch
1
Houston, Texas
Juv. Det. Center
1
Houston, Texas
State Boot Camp
5
Irma, Wisconsin
State Juvenile
Training School
9
Chicago, Illinois
Alternative High
School Program
4
Chicago, Illinois
Day Jail Program
1
Los Angeles, Calif.
Juvenile Det. Center 26
Downey, California
Juvenile Det. Center 16
Lake Co., Indiana
Hoosier's Boys Town 0
Southern Texas
Juv. Detention Center 9
Ohio: Riverview
Juv. Corr'l. Center
7
Forsyth, North Carolina
Forsyth County Jail
21
Ohio: Lighthouse
(Private Facility)
2
Normal, Illinois
Total
******
85
383
498
25
71
98
3
18
21
31
36
68
24
32
57
76
36
117
94
224
327
18
39
61
14
46
61
57
305
388
75
205
296
20
29
49
38
58
105
42
46
95
123
37
181
12
11
21
25
McLean Co. Juv.
Detention Center
3
Ohio: Maumee Youth
Correctional Center 5
Ohio: Sciotto Youth
Ohio: Indian River
Youth Corr'l. Center 14
Chicago, Illinois
Alternative Elementary
Disciplinary School
9
Ohio: Tico Youth
Ohio: Mohican Youth
Correctional Center
8
Ohio: Cuyahoga Hills
Youth Corr'l. Center 12
TOTAL
206
7
10
20
43
48
96
62
82
152
41
47
102
11
6
26
123
105
241
76
60
144
48
60
120
1148
1994
3348
In all contexts a saturation sampling technique was sought. This meant everyone in the
social context was asked to participate in the research. Sometimes incentives were used, and
this meant upwards of 90 percent of the populations in these contexts cooperating. Our
sample of gang members therefore includes youths and adults, those in custody, and those not
in custody.
INTERNAL CONTROLS ON DATA QUALITY
A number of precautions and safeguards were undertaken during the survey process to
ensure the highest possible quality
in the data collected.
1. Covert Observation. During the actual collection of data at some sites there was the
opportunity for covert observation. This involved several of the jail or juvenile correctional
sites where it was possible to watch the inmates completing the questionnaires on closed
circuit television or through observation areas. Thus, in some jail sites it was possible for the
researchers to hand out pencils and surveys and then in a control room watch the inmate
behavior in their cell areas on the security video monitors. In no case did we see collaboration
or any systematic tampering (i.e., one inmate filling out more than one questionnaire). There
was no evidence of any collective fraud on the part of inmates in completing the
questionnaires. As in other settings, this was presented as a "very personal" survey. Almost
all inmates and others surveyed in other sites were remarkably cooperative. In school sites,
for example, there was always at least one researcher present at all times inside each
classroom while the questionnaires were being filled out.
2. Overt Observation. Overt observation was the rule of thumb in all sites, as one or more
of the principal researchers were on hand at all sites to watch and observe the process of data
collection. This also afforded the opportunity of introducing another methodological
safeguard to evaluate the quality of our data collection. Gender is a specific forced-choice
item on the questionnaire, but it was also a variable coded during overt observation
immediately after collecting the questionnaires. In all the jails, in the west coast site, and in
Chicago sites, we took an additional overt observation precaution during the data collection
22
process. This entailed physically marking all of the physical source documents with a code
for gender. Thus, all male and female respondents could then be assessed in terms of attempts
at deception with regard to gender. This code assigned by the researchers as an observation
taken during a close social contact (i.e., collecting the survey instruments one at a time) was
then able to be compared with the respondents forced-choice response. A random response
pattern or a fraudulent response pattern could possible be evident in a case where the overt
observation of gender did not match with the self-reported gender in the response to the
question inside the survey about gender. Thus, lying about gender was seen in only a couple
cases and where it was detected the entire survey instrument was not used. Thus, a few cases
were eliminated for obvious attempts at deception.
3. Zero Tolerance for Data Entry or Transcription Errors. All survey data stored
electronically for purposes of computerized statistical analysis were cross-checked against
source documents (i.e., the survey instruments). The data was checked and re-checked and
contains no validity threat from transcription errors in the data reduction process. Most of the
data entry was performed by one of the Ph.D. researchers or a Ph.D. candidate statistical
typist. Some of the data was keyed to disk by highly trained advanced students serving as
interns to the National Gang Crime Research Center and their work was thoroughly checked.
4. Few Unusable Survey Instruments Detected. In most of the sites and social contexts
used for data collection, a saturation sampling method was used: everyone in the site was
asked to complete the questionnaire. Small honorariums were used in some of the sites, and
in these sites we would could casually check the surveys to ensure they were fully completed
before giving out the honorariums. In very few instances were unusable questionnaires
returned. This is far less than one percent and typically involved someone who would check
every response to every question, or some similar non-seismical way of showing noncooperation. This was a voluntary action to participate in the research, and for the most part
a very large majority of the persons at all sites participated and provided high cooperation.
The most hostile reaction the gang members had to the survey was the question we had about
their expected life expectancy: at what age they expected they would die.
However, we got the distinct impression that most respondents including those in custody
were highly motivated to complete the questionnaires, in one sense because this provided an
interesting distraction from the boredom of routine regular activities. In only rare instances,
then, did we obtain "tainted" survey instruments: those what were obviously fraudulently
completed, or not capable of being interpreted, that is for the most part non-cooperative.
Thus, no tainted data is included in our analysis because these very few cases where the
respondent was less than cooperative their survey instruments were discarded.
5. An Acceptable Level of Trust Was Established.
While our approach was essentially the same with everyone regardless of the social
context, in the jail and secure contexts extra efforts were made to provide an adequate
introduction and explanation to the respondents. At least one or more of the researchers were
typically on hand in the correctional environments studied, where they approached each cellhouse area or living area and explained in detail the purpose of the survey research.
In the
correctional settings, it was not uncommon for joking comments to be heard from the
respondents about criminal justice officials, or critical comments towards the criminal justice
system generally. Friendly dialogue was common in all social contexts, because the
researchers often took time after the survey to answer verbal inquiries, and listen to concerns
and issues of the respondents. While the survey asks for no name, and its printed title is
ANONYMOUS NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY, and while we explained verbally that we
did not want their names because this was a very personal type of questionnaire; it was not
uncommon in some instances for respondents to still write-in their names and provide other
23
unsolicited information. Several offered to become paid informants, or desired personal
interviews such as this respondent (#932): "I can be more helpful, ask for Pac-Maniac on 2N3.
For a small fee I can tell you anything plus more you need to know! The message above is
only valid til this Tuesday at 5 PM!".
In the school settings and non-correctional settings, research assistants were always on
hand in each room or area, and to ensure the privacy of the responses the respondents were
told that their teacher or program supervisor would never actually see or touch the surveys.
Thus, we collected all surveys directly from the respondents in and out of the correctional
settings.
We feel on the basis of the above procedures respectful of the respondents in their social
settings regarding the privacy of their responses, and based on our observations of the process
of data collection, that a sufficient level of trust was established with respondents to get
relatively honest answers.
We have only one caveat that all criminological researchers should be recognizing
themselves: offenders have the tendency to over-report their positive attributes and underreport their stigmatizable attributes, and the kind of gang members we are studying are more
often than not offenders. Regardless of social context this tendency operates in all areas of
research on real offenders, and gang offenders are no different. We also recognize, and this
tendency works to our methodological advantage, that offenders are more likely to honestly
report the deviance of their friends and associates than their own deviance. Thus, many of the
questions or focal areas of our research ask them about "others", i.e., their gang.
6. High Cognition on the Meaning of the Survey Items Implies Clearly We Are
Measuring What We Purport To Measure. A large number of respondents, across social
contexts but particularly those in custody, had the tendency to write notes and memoranda
style comments in the margins of the survey instrument on a variety of issues. These are
highly emotive comments implying clear cognition of the true meaning of the survey items
or questions. Several examples of this kind of "running" commentary and shared written
communication from respondents is helpful to review here to illustrate our assumption
regarding this aspect of the strength of our methodology.
Not one survey respondent returned the survey instrument and claimed not to understand
the questions. Not one written comment indicated a lack of understanding of the meaning of
the question. These were, after all, very concrete questions.
7. Built-in "Lie Tests". In the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) full
form of 566 true or false questions, a "lie scale" exists by being able to compare responses to
a question early in the form with a similar question latter in the form. When someone
intentionally engages in deceit, they often forget what they lied about before. Thus, it is
possible to identify clear inconsistencies in this way.
Similar provisions were adopted for the present research methodology by building in
such "lie tests" or tests of inconsistency into the survey instrument questions. Thus, like the
MMPI once scored, our present survey instrument once analyzed provides the basis for
identifying deceptive response patterns --- those that are clearly inconsistent or suggestive of
deceptive responses.
The first test is one where we could capture any respondent who was paranoid enough
to lie about present age and age at time of first arrest. One of the questions in the survey
instrument asks "At what age were you FIRST arrested for any crime? When I
was______years old". Another item in the survey instrument asks "How old are you today?
I am _____ years old." A respondent who would engage in early intentional deceit in a
response pattern to the survey instrument could therefore be detected by comparing these two
items. Deceitful responses would be evident whenever the value of the age for first arrest
24
exceeded the value of present age. A simple computer check allowed for directly testing for
this type of systematic deception. In other words, a deceptive respondent might give the age
of 20 for age at time of first arrest and give the age of 17 for current age later in the item order
of the survey instrument. The results of this test were no detected deception of this blatant
nature.
Several other hypotheses were tested to evaluate the validity of the data. These consisted
of matched-pair items that were very similar in nature, that is these questions basically asked
the same thing, but with the item phraseology being slightly altered. Most of these matched
pair variables measuring the same thing were intermixed throughout the survey. By using
contingency table or crosstabulation analysis, the relationship between these paired variables
had better be statistically significant by the Chi-square test because one similar variable
should significantly different a second similar variable if the respondents are being honest
with us. We found these tests (ITEM51*ITEM52, ITEM72*ITEM58, ITEM3*ITEM47,
ITEM49*ITEM125C, ITEM30G*ITEM29, ITEM2*ITEM3) very significant with Chi-square
values reaching Chi-square = 542.1 in strength. Had these matched-pair lie tests not been
significant, then we would have had to conclude that large scale lie behavior threatened the
validity of the data.
In short, much attention in this research during the instrumentation phase was paid to the
matter of structuring a variety of opportunities for the respondent to be deceptive or deceitful
in a way that could be easily detected by data analysis. We know it is not customary for
researchers when investigating such offender populations as included in the present research
to do this, but we did feel that it was necessary to speak to this issue in as much as this was
a large scale investigation involving an assortment of known offender groups.
OTHER ISSUES OF VALIDITY
As previously alluded to much attention to detail and many precautions were undertaken
during the research process that were designed to enhance validity by protecting against
threats to validity. These protective measures used will be described here. We conclude that
the validity of the research reported here is higher than average for social research of the type
conducted here.
We begin by recognizing that generally in social research, and all criminal justice or
criminological research, that the term validity is defined as the extent to which the researchers
have measured what they purport to measure. Therefore, the ultimate assessment of validity
goes directly to the issue of whether or not the survey instrument captures and effectively
differentiates the population at-risk to gangs, whether it can effectively identify subgroupings
within the gang population (i.,e., specific gangs), and whether the questions about gang life,
economic issues, and other related factors or variables really measure what they say they
measure. We further note that the ambiguity in language in the survey instrument was
reduced during a field or pretest of the survey instrument. We further note that there were few
who did not understand the questions in the survey that they were predicted to understand.
Obviously, we did not assume that non-gang members would understand much about the
detailed dynamics of the economic infrastructure and financial aspects of gang life. We did,
however, predict that gang members would both understand the meaning of such questions
and be able to report their experience and beliefs about these specific aspects of gang life. We
therefore report that in terms of the construct validity of the survey instrument itself that gang
members clearly did understand and had little difficulty in providing responses to the nearly
200 variables in the survey instrument.
The validity issue of the length of the survey is a moot issue we feel. Our survey
25
instrument is long, but generally can be completed in about 30 minutes by most respondents.
The structure of the social settings in which the data was collected were such that no
"pressure" existed to rapidly complete the questionnaires. The respondents in all social
contexts had more time available to them than was needed for the actual completing of the
anonymous questionnaire. In school rooms, a entire hour was set aside, and few needed this
much time. In other settings, such as a community program, the respondent could take as
much time as needed. Thus, by the nature of the precautions taken during the implementation
of the research, we rule out any fatigue or "length of survey deterioration" factor as a threat
to the validity of this research.
Concurrent of criterion validity means examining a measurement in relationship to some
other variable it should be highly predictive of. The most important aspect of the current
research was defining who was or who was not a gang member. The way in which validity
controls were implemented in the present research design therefore asked different versions
of the same question for several variables. This also meant being able to induce much quality
control: for example, making sure that someone who in one question reports they have ever
joined a gang, and who in another variable indicates the exact name of the gang in an openended "fill in the blank" type of question (i.e., "What gang did or do you belong
to?_______________), and who then indicates the type of alliance or nation status. Thus, any
"Gangster Disciple" would in our sample have to also indicate a membership in the "Folks"
nation. We found very little discrepancy between such variables, and therefore believe that
our basic measures that differentiate gang members and non-gang members are very accurate.
These are also, for the most part, "brand name" gangs: gangs common to the social contexts
from which they were sampled (Crips, Bloods, and Sureno sets on the west coast, etc). One
of the ways in which we were able to use a "criterion" validity approach was our access to
probably the best and most current national directory of gangs in America today --- the
National Geographic Guide to Gangs in the United States. This is a large computer file
maintained by the National Gang Crime Research Center, it is updated from numerous sources
(law enforcement, corrections, etc) every year and has monitored the gang proliferation
problem for five years in a row. For a sample listing of this information useful in validating
gang names for gang members, see the companion volume to An Introduction to Gangs (3rd
and expanded edition, 1995): National Gang Resource Handbook: An Encyclopedic
Reference (1995, Bristol, Indiana: Wyndham Hall Press). Thus, official sources providing
names of numerous gangs in America were used to cross-check the self-disclosed data from
respondents in the present research. As the analysis will reveal, the gang members in the
present study are for the most part very well known gangs. Thus, for our most important
variable of focus (gang membership), we were able to ascertain the validity of the selfreported gang membership by examining it in relationship to another of other validity control
items (name of gang, gang nation alliance, type of rank held in the gang, etc). We did not
encounter any cases that were impostors: only a gang member in such a gang would know the
type of leadership positions in its unique hierarchy.
The present research can rule out a threat to the internal validity of the design based on
history. The reason this is true is that all the data was collected in a short period of time
during 1995 (Spring to summer, 1995) covering about a six month period. The hidden benefit
of not being a federally funded type of research project is that also there were few if any
obstructions to the research process, and that the results could be reported in a relatively short
time frame as well. Thus, the findings are very much reflective of the current social reality
(i.e., we did not have to wait a couple years to report our findings). For the same reasons,
maturation was not a threat to the validity of our research design, because as stated all data
collected occurred in a short period of time nationally (a three month period) in all sites,
26
sometimes simultaneously.
The issue of testing as a threat to validity is common to all surveys on known offenders
and all self-report surveys. Completing surveys in some of the contexts was a common
expectation, particularly among students and youths in juvenile correctional settings. Even
the jail inmates had much experience in completing such questionnaires and "surveys". A
number of precautions were taken to ensure the validity of the research design by always
having researchers on-site during all data collection, typically several members of the larger
team were present to assist with data collection. Mostly this involved explaining to the
potential respondents that this was a completely anonymous survey, it did ask very personal
questions, and that was the reason we did not want anyone's name, and that the "we"
consisted of: university professors.
Wherever possible we tried to off-set the disruptiveness of having unknown persons
intruding on their social contexts distributing surveys and pencils by offering some type of
consumable amenity as a small reward or honorarium for completing the questionnaire. Thus,
in most contexts this was viewed as a pleasant distraction. For these and other reasons
discussed in the report we do not feel that testing was a major threat to the validity of the
present research.
As discussed above as well, the pretesting or field testing of the survey instrument was
designed to eliminate any ambiguity in words, phraseology, expressions, and writing.9 These
are forced-choice questions that are not double-barrelled questions, they are pinpointed to
specific issues or measurements of background and behavioral experience, beliefs, and
attitudes. We posit that the validity of the present study is therefore acceptable for studies of
its kind regarding any threat to validity from instrumentation. Another reason that we can rule
out instrumentation as a major threat to the validity of our research is that a number of our
variables are direct replications of previous research found to be acceptable and reported in
the literature --- as is discussed at appropriate points in this report, where such literature is
specifically cited.
One of the strengths of the present research regarding validity is how we overcame the
potential threat to validity from differential selection of subjects. In gang research, as is
common in criminal justice and criminological research on offenders generally, the common
situation is to have only one social context to study the human aspect of interest. In the
present research, as explained earlier, the plan in advance was to develop and use multiple
social contexts for purpose of data collection. Thus, gang members were not just studied in
the school context, they were studied in all social contexts where we could reasonably assume
we could find them: in adult correctional settings, in juvenile correctional settings, in
community programs, in probation caseloads, and of course in the school context. Further,
the geographic representation of the sample was intended to be able to examine variations
across a large span of the United States: including data collection sites in California, Indiana,
Iowa, Illinois, Texas, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Ohio. Therefore in a comparative
assessment our present research is stronger than most in this regard to taking precautionary
measures to ensure that the threat to validity in terms of differential selection of subjects
included a broad cross-section (i.e., across different social contexts) and geographical
spectrum. Our analysis can therefore speak to issues of comparison not capable in much
previous gang research (i.e., comparing west coast Crips/Bloods with midwest People/Folks,
9
No respondents were used from the pre-testing. The
national sample of gang members was completely developed after
the pretesting.
27
etc).
The issue of mortality for validity is of minimal concern to the present study and is
therefore not a major threat. This was, after all, a "snapshot" survey design: we only sought
out a cross-section of data; this was a multi-state multi-context cross-sectional survey research
design. It was not intended to be a longitudinal design, with follow-up measurements. The
only way in which mortality might therefore negatively impair on the research design would
be if our sampling was limited to only one type of social context, or if we only used one site
for each type of social context. The fact is we used multiple social contexts and for some of
these (i.e., jails, juvenile correctional facilities) we used multiple sites within these social
contexts as well. Thus, if someone "missed out" from such a site, chances are this is minimal
in terms of not being able to capture the social reality of these social contexts. After all,
within the specific social context sites, the research plan called for a "saturation" sampling
method: everyone in the jail, the school, the program, etc, was asked to complete the
questionnaire. Very few persons refused to complete the questionnaire. We tried to structure
our data collection in correctional settings where we did not interfere with court calls or
visiting, thus we often had to be at the jail late at night on some occasions, and almost always
on the weekends, requiring travel and overnight stays in various cities for some of the
researchers. Through previous research experience the researchers knew how to structure the
data collection process to be as minimally disruptive to the security and other concerns of
correctional facilities. We do know that with a long survey instrument such as that used in
the present research project that there may be "item mortality", this is not a matter of
"attention deficit disorders", it is a matter of simply losing the respondent at some later point
in the survey instrument, thus resulting in some cases missing data for those items towards the
end of the survey instrument. The present research is, therefore, not unlike other similar
survey research designs in having the common problem of some missing data on the many
variables measured.
Finally, the issue of regression as a threat to validity is viewed as minimal in the present
research and not a major threat. Measurement error was not a major problem, given the fact
that among gang members our variables designed to elicit the nature of their economic
experiences in and associated with gang life were questions or items or variables that are both
replicable and having little if any ambiguity. No cognitive bias exists in this regard to the
variables used in the research. We did not simply include extreme cases: such as those highly
cooperative youths on a street corner who might suddenly become very interested in a
research project when a person of higher social class and social power arrives on the scene
to offer aid and assistance --- material and psychic benefits in nature. The fact is our gang
analysis covers the complete gang risk continuum as the analysis will reveal.
The gang member respondent was particularly prone to write lengthy and unsolicited
comments in the margins of the surveys. This highly affective arousal signaled clearly that
the respondents understood all too well the meaning of the questions. Sometimes this running
commentary of unsolicited remarks directed feedback to the researchers in various ways,
explaining subtle nuances, some of which will be discussed in this report at appropriate points
in the presentation of results.
These were questions that gang members clearly understood, enough so that often such
members would strike up conversations and seek out attention from the researchers at almost
all the sites. The typical gang member respondent was very curious that anyone would ask
such specific questions about gang life today. Thus, it was not uncommon for the researchers
to stay around the site for additional time spent answering direct questions from the youths,
this was particularly true in the juvenile correctional setting.
To recap, in many of the common threats to the internal validity of research such as that
28
reported here (history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, differential selection of subjects,
experimental mortality, statistical regression), the precautions taken in the research design,
the scope and extent of the research effort (i.e., covering several states, different social
contexts, and a large sample), render these threats to be viewed as minimal.
RELIABILITY
The issue of reliability is the matter of the "quality" of the data. The informed reader will
recognize that the term reliability in research means basically "do we get the same results with
repeated measures". Over time it is possible, indeed probable, that "gang life" and the gang
problem itself can, could and might change. For example, the gang problem has expanded
and proliferated in recent years in the United States. In another sense, the meaning of
reliability in the type of social research conducted here often means "would different
researchers going to the same places using the same questions get the same results". We
argue, by the nature of the methodological rigor and level of effort in the present research
design, that this would in fact be the case to a high degree. In other words, when we issue
what are called "site reports" or rapid information summaries back to the host sites that
provided access for data collection, that our data truly does reflect the social reality of their
environment. Most who have received these site reports agree with us in regard to the critical
issues: specifically, gang density, and the scope and extent of the gang member problem in
their populations.
This is not to say that the problem may not escalate or deteriorate in the years ahead. That
is not the nature of our research purpose to predict the future. Rather our intent is limited to
the nature of our research methodology --- a cross-sectional survey design using large samples
--- of simply describing the current situation in these various social contexts. Given the rapid
feedback, that is little time delay arose between time of data collection and the reporting of
findings, we also argue that our research has high reliability in terms of the volatility of such
data: ours was recently collected, and quickly reported. Our generalizations are to the
present, not the future --- as we recognize the gang problem is a dynamic and not a static
problem.
But the trained researcher will also recognize that the methodological matter of reliability
is really the simple and testable issue of whether the same measurement techniques used in
different research settings or at different points in time produce the same results. We can give
and test an example of this aspect of reliability. Different questions at different points in the
item order of the survey produced almost identical results. These are discussed in the chapter
describing the descriptive findings on our gang member sample.
However, if this measurement is lacking in the area of reliability this would come out if
multiple sites were chosen to study the issues of gang prevention and gang intervention. That
is, the hypothesis of logical inference is that in the same city, among the same gangs, there
should be no difference in this factor if we asked the same question in different social settings.
Indeed, social settings that are indeed mutually exclusive: that is, one could not exist or be
found in both simultaneously. For example, one could not exist in a regular public high
school population and also exist in a day jail pretrial program.
It is important to note the subtle social nuances of the these two types of social settings.
We chose these settings very carefully for purposes of being able to ultimately have some
representativeness of the universe to which we sought to generalize. Thus, the alternative
high school site is kind of like a school of last resort for some students, and it is a day program
during the week. One cannot exist in two places at the same time, as the day jail program
operates also during the ordinary work day (9/5) and also during the weekdays. However, if
one were a gang member and had come to the attention of social control agencies, one could
29
end up in either of these two different levels of sanctions against deviance. To be in the
alternative school setting one had to be at least 16 years of age; to be in the adult jail general
population (and qualify for the day jail program) one would have to be 17 years of age.
Students travel to the alternative high school site from all over the City of Chicago.
Participants in the day jail program travel to the day jail site also from all over the City of
Chicago. Obviously, one is in more trouble with the law in the day jail program than in the
alternative high school setting, but the measurements on an aspect of the economic function
or expectations in the same gangs in the same area should not be different just because we use
different sampling frames for the same gangs. That is, just because we have different social
context sites for data collection, the measurement should not be substantially different. If it
is substantially different results and/or much variation does exist in the same concept
measured on the same gangs among relatively equal age groups in different catchment areas
of the same city, then a clear problem of reliability exists.
Our research was structured in a way to enhance both validity and reliability. Thus, in
Chicago we had several such mutually exclusive sites that were identical in several important
methodological respects: a public high school, a juvenile detention center, and a day jail
program. The same gangs existed in both sites, as detailed elsewhere in this report. Both
settings contained about an equal gang density (percentage of the persons surveyed there who
were self-reported gang members). Both settings also had catchment areas that were citywide:
persons in these contexts could come from anywhere in the wider Chicago geographical area.
Now the test: but did we get the same results in different settings, the equivalent of one
research project compared with another research project? Yes, is the answer.
In the Chicago alternative high school sample with a gang density comparable to that of the
day jail program we obtained almost identical results on the characteristics the gang members
used to describe their gang organization. In addition to these sites having comparable gang
density rates, they also attracted persons from all over the city.
OTHER ISSUES OF VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY: FOR IMPROVING FUTURE
RESEARCH
No replication problems materialized in the present research, as these were variables or
items (i.e., survey questions) used in the prior literature. However, in some small selected
instances of paving new grounds in the area of the economic life of gangs, and other factors
included in some of the sites (i.e., sexual abuse, family life, etc) in this comprehensive survey,
we felt that some improvements could be made in terms of the structure of such questions.
These are reported as they appear in the presentation of results, and in their interpretation at
relevant points in this report. We also provide suggestions for improving the validity and
reliability of these measurements for purposes of future research. We recognize that there is
no such thing as the "perfect" model of social research on anything, but that improvements
can always be made.
The present research project was clearly an ambitious undertaking. We do, therefore,
discuss ways to improve the validity and reliability of future research efforts such as that
reported here. These discussions and references are made in the body of this report where
relevant. Thus, we fairly and fully alert other researchers to these concerns.
We have lots of recommendations for improving research on gangs. We discuss these
issues in greater detail in our conclusions section.
TYPES OF GANGS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE OF OVER 2,000 GANG
MEMBERS
The full list of gangs represented in this sample includes several hundred different gangs
30
most of whom fall into the Crip, Blood, People, and Folks classification system. This sample
therefore includes over 100 members of the Gangster Disciples gang in Chicago, for example.
A large variety of different sets of Crips and Bloods are represented in the sample as well.
The types of gangs cut across the ethnic and racial spectrum as well (white, Black, Latino,
Asian). These are, for the most part, the more serious types of gangs of interest to the
criminological researcher. These include gangs such as the Aryan Brotherhood, and a variety
of different factions of Vice Lords from the midwestern United States (Insane Vice Lords,
Conservative Vice Lords, Unknown Vice Lords, Mafia Insane Vice Lords, Traveller Vice
Lords) and literally all types of disciples (Gangster Disciples, Black Disciples, Maniac Latin
Disciples, etc).
WHY WE KNOW THE GANG MEMBERS ARE IN THE GANGS THEY PURPORT
TO BE MEMBERS OF
For most of our sites used in Project GANGPINT we used a unique methodological tool
developed by the National Gang Crime Research Center. It involves a comparison of the
symbols and expressions known to be used by the gang a person purports to be a member of.
This was one of our additional validity control devices.
31
CHAPTER 3
A DESCRIPTION OF THE GANG MEMBERS IN THE PRESENT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a full description of all the information the
authors obtained in this national study for the large sample of N = 1,994 gang members.13
This means providing a lot of new and interesting statistics on the gang problem in America.
No technical knowledge of statistics is required to understand this chapter, because it relies
entirely on descriptive statistics most people are already familiar with.
The purpose here is not to compare gang members to non-gang members, as that issue will
arise in the next chapter. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to simple: examine in great
detail the a large number of factors about gang members and only gang members.
Can we better understand gang members? The answer is yes, it begins with reading this
chapter.
BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
The age of the gang members in this sample ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 56.
Some 83.5 percent were under the age of 18. Almost all (88.8%) fell in the small age range
of 14 to 18 years of age.
In terms of race and ethnicity: 48.7 percent were African-American or Black; 5.5 percent
were Asian or Chinese; 3.4 percent were American Indian or Native American; 19.3 percent
were Mexican; 3.5 percent were Puerto Rican; 14.8 percent were white or caucasian; and 4.9
percent were "other".
Most of these gang members (91.3%) are males. Only 8.7 percent of the gang members
are females (8.7%).
FAMILY FACTORS
Seventeen different variables were used to address a wide variety of issues about the family
life generally, and the role of the family regarding gang prevention and gang intervention
specifically. These factors are all included in hypotheses about gang members in terms of
family conditions, family socialization, and those things a family offers that might play a role
in preventing future children from joining gangs.
High Level of Fear Among Gang Members: They Worry About The Safety of Their
Family Members
The survey asked "do you worry about the safety of your family members". Some 91.6
percent (N = 1824) replied "yes", they do in fact worry about the safety of their family
members. Only a small percentage of the gang members in this large national sample did not
worry about the safety of their family members (N = 167, 8.4%).
This fear might be labelled by psychologists as aberrant or perhaps even reaching the level
of paranoia and persecution. However, one thing gang membership offers in its benefit
package that families find out the hard way is the unexpected violence that comes to family
members from opposition or rival gang members --- particularly when the rival gangs discover
where the individual lives. Gang violence today can mean simply attacking the physical
structure where an opposition gang member lives. In many cases, nationwide, this can mean
32
a firebomb being thrown at the house where the gang member lives, shooting a gun into the
house where the gang member lives, and what inadvertently and typically happens is a nongang involved family member dies or is seriously injured. So, we believe that the kind of
gang members we are studying have some right to be concerned about the safety of their
family members.
Almost All Claim to Want To Eventually Lead A Conventional Lifestyle
The survey asked "in the future, would you like to get a legal job, get married, and have
children". That was, a researcher in Project GANGPINT hypothesized, the basic ingredients
of a conventional future adult lifestyle. What we found did amaze us: almost all claim to want
this conventional lifestyle in the future. Some 93.5 percent (N = 1854) indicated "yes", that
in the future they would like to get a legal job, get married, and have children. Only 6.5
percent (N = 128) did not have this future plan to lead a conventional lifestyle.
The Wartime Hysteria Phenomenon: Almost All Think Their Parents/Family/Friends
Worry About Whether These Gang Members Will Be Killed
The survey asked "do you think your parents/family/friends worry about you being killed".
The findings here did not surprise us. Almost all (N = 1793, 91.2%) did feel their significant
others worried about them being killed. These are after all gang members in the kinds of
gangs that do kill. Only 8.8 percent of the gang members in our sample (N = 174) did not
express this kind of wartime hysteria phenomenon.
A Third of the Gang Members Say Their Father Never Punished Them For Misbehavior
The survey asked the gang members to indicate in a true or false type of response mode
their answer to the following statement: "My father never punished me for misbehavior".
Two-thirds of the gang members in this sample (67.1%, N = 1274) gave the response of
"false". A third (32.9%, N = 625) replied true, that their father never punished them for
misbehavior.
Over A Fourth Agree That Fear Is The Only Effective Means That Can Be Used To
Control Children
The survey asked the gang members to indicate whether they agree or disagree with the
following statement: "Fear is the only effective means that you can use to control children".
Obviously, agreeing to this would tend to suggest an important aspect of authoritarianism in
the character and personality of the same person. While this sounds like a strange question
to be asking anyone, it is actually a replication of some previous important research.
In fact, 30.5 percent (N = 582) of the gang members agreed with this statement that fear
is the only effective way to control children. However, most of the gang members (69.5%,
N = 1328), disagreed with the statement.
The Love Mother -- Hate Father Pattern
Common to the criminal offender population generally, mother is held in reverence, and
father is more likely to be despised. Such a trend of differential evaluations of mother and
father appears among gang members in this research as well. Two separate questions are used
to address this issue.
The first question asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement:
"there is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great deal of love, gratitude,
and respect for his/her mother".14 A majority of the gang members (72.2%, N = 1378) agreed
with this moral evaluation. Of course, just over a fourth (27.8%, N = 531) disagreed.
33
The second question used the same language but used "father" instead of mother. In this
variable measuring respect for father figures, some 57.6 (N = 1,112) percent agreed. Thus,
42.4 percent (N = 820) disagreed.
Clearly, mother holds a greater role to play in the lives of these gang members than does
the father figure in terms of respect.
A Previously Taboo Topic: Parents As Facilitators of Gang Crime
The family might be a sacred institution, but today the family as a social institution does
have some serious problems that perhaps need to be recognized. One of these is the issue that
being a biological parent is no guarantee of being a nurturing parent that can raise a lawabiding child. Further, it is one thing to be a bad parent out of ignorance of parenting skills,
and it is another thing entirely to be a covert accomplice to the crimes of their children.
The survey asked the simple and straight-forward yes/no question "did your parents ever
approve of your stealing". Most (81.7%, N = 1571) indicated "no", that is their parents did
not approve of their stealing. However, nearly a fifth of the gang members (18.3%, N = 353)
answered "yes", that is, their parents did approve of their stealing.
So for at least 18.3 percent of these gang members, when we are talking about what kind
of family background they have, it is a criminogenic family background: one where the parent
approves, or may often benefit, from the crimes of the children. In this scenario, the parent
is the economic beneficiary of the crime committed by children. These are situations where
the parent appears to also face criminal sanctions and a topic worthy of additional future
research into "parents as facilitators" of gang crime.
A Fourth of All Gang Members Never Got Help At Home With Their Homework
The survey asked the respondents to answer yes or no to the following question: "when you
were going to school, did any adult living in your household help you with your homework".
Most (72.1%, N = 1408) answered "yes", that is they did get such help from an adult in their
household. However, a fourth (27.9%, N = 546) indicated they did not get help from any
adult in their household with their homework when they were going to school.
We suspect this family and household factor may have some bearing on school failure rates
among the gang member population as well.
A Fifth of Gang Members Actually Agree to the Ultimate Last Resort: Taking Kids
Away From Inept Parents
When the sixteen researchers began this study, they agreed to a scientific spirit of
discovery: let the chips fall where they may, let no important issue be avoided. It is not a
matter of producing controversy, it is a matter of addressing existing controversy in society.
A long-standing controversy in the current version of the parens patriae doctrine surrounds
the issue of taking kids away from their biological parents: it is generally believed it is a bad
idea, it is best to keep wherever possible the family intact as a social unit. But what if the
social unit is anti-social? So we addressed this issue in our study.
The survey asked for a yes/no answer to the question: "do you feel that if parents cannot
keep their children out of gangs, the children should be taken away from the parents". Most
of these gang members answered "no" (80.9%, N = 1568). About a fifth (19.1%, N = 371)
answered "yes".
Over Two-Fifths of Gang Members Agree: Some Parents Benefit Financially From
Having A Child Who Is A Gang Member.
The survey asked "do you feel that some parents benefit financially from having a child
34
who is a gang member". Some 44.1 percent (N = 841) agreed that some parents reap
economic benefits from having gang-involved kids, we would suspect this is particularly true
in the area of drugs and stolen goods. Still, some 55.9 percent (N = 1064) indicated "no", that
they do not believe that some parents benefit from the ill gotten gains of their gang member
offspring.
Two-Thirds of Gang Members Have Had Friends or Family Members Killed Because
of Gang Violence
This is another one of the "downside" aspects of gang life that children are not told about
when they receive their initial understanding of the "benefits package" offered by joining a
gang. Gang recruiters focus on the glamourous side of gang life, its excitement not its loss
of life, its thrill not its sorrow, and its "fast times" and good life not its statistically significant
increased probability of violence to both self and loved ones.
Some of the contemporary literature on gangs has claimed that gang life is basically a
boring existence, without offering any nationwide empirical evidence of the same claim.
While we agree obviously that because of their attachment to territorial claims (i.e., turf) in
the community context, many gang members do not tour the city or elsewhere on a frequent
basis; nor do we expect them to be enjoying many competitive sports or high culture (i.e.,
opera, theatre, ballet, symphonies, ballroom dancing, etc), we do expect them to be those who
control the streets in the night. So contrary to some gang experts, we do suspect that there is
an important essentially social attraction to gang life: its perceived excitement, the thrill of
conflict, the adrenaline rush of violence, etc --- these are not boring at all. Guns, drugs, sex,
violence, subcultural music forms --- these can have an enormous appeal to kids, kids who
join gangs.
Our survey therefore asked the question "have any of your friends or family been killed
because of gang trouble". Our results show that over two-thirds of the gang members (69.9%,
N = 1,353) report that they have in fact had friends or family members who have died because
of such gang conflicts. Some 30.1 percent (N = 584) therefore reported not having any
friends or family killed because of gang trouble. We remind the reader that the drive for
revenge is not a boring psychological state of mind, and the data here suggests that two-thirds
might be capable of that type of orientation. In previous research findings about the
"combative personality syndrome" among gang members, the gang member views his world
as an urban guerilla war, where the rival gang is the force of opposition in a civil war against
a corrupt overall society that needs to be destroyed, and lost friends and family are simply
"heros of the revolution", just as the gang member himself is a modern day "freedom fighter".
The Real Test of The Benefits of Gang Membership: Whether Gang Members Would
Want Their Own Children to Be In A Gang.
This may be a surrogate measure of the extent to which gang members may be admitting
to making a bad decision by joining a gang themselves. In otherwords, the gang may not be
all it is cracked up to be. That is, beneath the glitz and glitter of how gang members portray
their status in life may be some really serious disadvantages that are not apparent until after
falling into the trap of the "group think" and "risky shift" phenomenon of gang membership.
The survey asked for a yes/no response to the question: "do you want your children to be
in a gang". Here the response pattern is unequivocal: apparently gang life is not, after all,
such a good life. Some 83.4 percent (N = 1,607) of the gang members indicated they would
not want their children to be in a gang. Only 16.6 percent (N = 319) said they would want
their own children to be in a gang.
35
This is also something naive children never have the good sense to ask the gang recruiter:
whether they would want their own child in the same gang. The evidence suggests that gang
members are to some extent admitting they have been "chumped" in regard to their own
decisions about joining a gang. Gang life is, after all, not something that most gang members
would want their own children to be involved in is the evidence that emerges here.
High Rate of Substance Abuse in Gang Families
The survey asked an important question about the role of substance abuse within the
family of orientation. The survey question asked for a yes/no response to the question: "do
you think anyone in your family uses drugs or drinks too much". The results show that over
half of the gang members (60.4%, N = 1174) report that yes in fact they have someone in their
family who would fit this type of definition of having a substance abuse problem. Thus, some
39.6 percent (N = 771) indicated they did not have someone in their family who uses drugs
or drinks too much.
What Gang Members Would Like To Give To Their Own Children
In their best of dreams, what gang members would ideally like to be able to some day give
to their own children may tell us something about what they are not getting themselves
presently. The survey therefore asked a kind of projective question in this regard, it asked
"assume some day you will be a parent, what is the one most important thing you would like
to give your child (Check ONE only)". They were given five choices and could choose only
one: status, education, money, power, and love.
Remember that "status", "money", and "power" figure prominently in what gang members
are supposed to be getting in their respective gang Nations and organizations. But is it
something they would like to someday be able to give to their children? Apparently not.
Most of the gang members (64.9%, N = 1,119) wanted to give "love" to their own children.
The second most popular item was "education" (21.9%, N = 378). Status was the lowest item
on the list (2.6%, N = 45). Power did not do much better (4.1%, N = 71), nor did money
(6.4%, N = 111).
Many Adults Have Tried to Prevent These Gang Members From Ever Becoming Gang
Members
The survey asked "have you ever had a good relationship with an adult who tried to
prevent you from being involved with gangs". We asked this because it is an obvious needs
assessment baseline variable: many assume no one tried to help these kids, and therefore as
the kids fell through the cracks, the kids became gang members because of neglect from their
society. But is that really true? We had to find out.
The fact is over two-thirds (72.4%, N = 1,377) of these gang members reported in the
survey that they had in fact enjoyed the benefit of having a good relationship with an adult
who tried to prevent them from being involved with gangs. It just didn't work!
Only about a fourth (27.6%, N = 525) of these gang members indicated they did not have
this opportunity in life of having a good relationship with an adult who tried to prevent them
from being involved with gangs.
If Gang Life Is So Rewarding, Why Would Four Out of Five Gang Members Discourage
Their Own Children From Joining A Gang?
The survey asked "If you have or plan to have children, would you encourage them or
discourage them from joining a gang". Only a fifth (20.8%, N = 388) of the gang members
indicated they would actually encourage their own children to join a gang. This is not
36
significantly different than the 16.6 percent of gang members we previously described who
said they would not mind if their child was in a gang. So there is high consistency in the
response rates here for this sample.
The most important finding is that four-fifths of these gang members (79.2%, N = 1,480)
would discourage their own children from joining a gang. This really tells us something about
the nature of the modern authoritarian gang structure today: its appeal is not something most
members would want to seriously encourage others they really love to get involved in. We
feel this has the most dramatic value for sending the message to the presently non-gang
involved youths in America: when you join the gang, you are joining something that most
members would not want their own children involved in. This finding will become even
stronger when we present the nature of the kinds of gangs we are talking about in this study.
Four-Fifths of Gang Members Do Want To Eventually Get Legally Married
A picture is starting to emerge about the what is "inside" the modern American gang
member today. It is the collective "wish" that many gang members have for a conventional
life. For many of them, however, we seriously wonder how viable that hope or wish might
be in light of the depth they have entered the gang world.
The survey asked "do you think
you will ever get legally married to someone". What we found was very conventional, and
we tested this against whether the same relationship held up by comparing male and female
gang members. What we found was that there is no difference at all by gender, that is if we
compare male or female gang members on this issue: they are both adamant --- regardless of
how gang members claim to have a "good life" in the gang, this is not a life they would want
their own children living.
Overall, 80.5 percent (N = 1535) of the gang members in this sample indicated that they
did in fact think that they will someday get legally married to someone. Only 19.5 percent (N
= 371) did not think they would ever get legally married to someone.
The Family As A Source of Corruption: Over Two-Thirds of Gang Members Report
They Have Other Family Members Who Are Also Gang Members
This is a hard piece of news to get about a social institution as sacred as the family. But
it appears to be true. The family can be a corrupting force to the same extent that it can be a
powerful positive force is what our data suggests. It also has dramatic implications for what
we mean when we say someone has a family structure. Having a gang-infested family
structure is no asset to a child in America today is another finding of our research.
The survey asked the relatively simple question "do you have family members who are in
a gang". Over two-thirds (69.8%, N = 1,327) of the gang members did in fact report that they
do have family members who are in a gang. Less than a third (30.2%, N = 574) reported that
they did not have other family members who are in a gang.
Juvenile judges, school teachers, and others have assumed what we assumed until now:
that having any kind of family that cared about a child was automatically assumed to be an
asset that would contribute to the increased probability of a positive prognosis for the future
of that child. We no longer assume that. We assume, rather, that like anything today: there
is natural variation in everything --- and unfortunately, that also means the family. Some
families can be criminogenic and an environment that could help propel youths into gangs:
why? Because they would emulate what older siblings might be doing --- gang banging.
37
The Modern Childhood Nightmare: Parents Who Are Themselves Active Gang
Members
It is not uncommon for gang members to describe their gang association as a "family
thing", a kind of pseudo-family structure of support for like-minded persons who just happen
to be involved in crime and violence as a way of life. As will be explained later in this report,
one of the things we investigated was not just aspects about the individual gang member, we
also gave much effort to finding out about the gang itself as an organizational structure. One
of these questions where we asked the gang member to tell us about his/her gang dealt with
the issue of parents who are themselves active gang members.
The survey asked "in your gang, are there members whose parents are also active gang
members". Apparently this is not at all a rare phenomenon, in fact two-thirds of these gang
members (68.3%, N = 1140) reported that in their gang there are members whose parents are
also active gang members. Only 31.7 percent (N = 529) of the gang members told us that in
their gang there are not members whose parents are also active gang members. We feel this
particular modern nightmare deserves much more investigation in the analysis that will follow
later in this report.
Most Gang Members Say Their Own Parents Disapproved of Their Gang Activity
The survey asked "in general, did your parents approve or disapprove of your own gang
involvement". Only 8.2 percent (N = 137) said their parents actually approved of their gang
activity. Most of the gang members (70.8%, N = 1188) said their parents disapproved of their
gang activity. And 21.1 percent (N = 354) said their parents did not care one way or the other.
A Fascinating Finding: Over Two-Thirds of the Gang Members Say They Would Quit
Gang Life If They Had the Chance To Get Married, Get A Steady Job, And Relocate
Maybe they are lying, maybe they are just having second thoughts about the value of gang
life, or maybe they are really telling us the truth that they are human beings with normal
dreams for a better life. The survey asked "would you quit gang life if you had the chance to
get married, get a good steady job, and live somewhere else".
The fact is that 73.2 percent (N = 1145) of these gang members told us they would quit
gang life if they could "style over" in this regard. Only a fourth (26.8%, N = 420) indicated
they would not quit gang life for this image of the good life. Still, the possibilities are mind
boggling if three-fourths of the gang members in American communities today could be
derailed from their gang activities --- if that could be achieved, then most would agree that
the gang problem could be substantially curtailed throughout the USA.
SCHOOL FACTORS
About fifteen different variables were used to examine school factors, as educational
institutions, like the family as a social institution, are often look at in our society as the
panacea for the prevention of a large assortment of problems. We entered this research
project with a willingness to "let the chips fall where they may". Some of our hopes for the
family, as seen in the previous section, quickly changed in light of the seriousness of how the
gang problem has penetrated our social institutions today.
The Anatomy of Gangbanging: From Victim to Victimizer
Bullying behavior is hypothesized to figure prominently in the anatomy of gangbanging
behavior. Four different questions were directed at better understanding this behavior among
this large national sample of gang members. First, the survey measured whether these gang
members had ever been "bullied" by anyone else while in school, and if so, the age this
victimization first occurred. Secondly, the survey measured whether the gang member had
38
ever "bullied" anyone else, and if so when this behavior first happened.
It appears that two-fifths (41.6%, N = 814) of these gang members have been a victim of
bullying behavior in school. This typically happened at about age 9, the mean or average for
this sample of gang members being 9.2 years old. Thus, over half (58.4%, N = 1145) of the
gang members report that they were not childhood victims of bullying behavior.
It is also clear that two-thirds (66.5%, N = 1,296) of these gang members were themselves
"bullies" in school. Thus, only about a third (33.5%, N = 654) were not bullies in school. For
those that were bullies in school, this behavior typically began at the age of 10.4 years of age
which is the mean or average age for this sample of gang members.
Educational Attainment
The vast majority of these gang members have never completed high school or received
the GED (87.4%, N = 1,681). In many of the juvenile correctional facilities these youths
could work on their GED diplomas, some apparently got them. However, 95.1 percent (N =
1,588) had actually completed no higher than the 11th grade of education. The mean, or
average, level of educational attainment actually completed was 9.2 years of educational
training.
About Half Have Been Demoted in School
The survey asked "have you ever been demoted in school". Half (47.5%, N = 916)
indicated that they have in fact been demoted in school. The other half (52.5%, N = 1011)
had not been demoted in school.
Most Did Get Have The Benefit of Adult Help With Homework
While many of these gang members have had problems in school, it is simply not true that
the homes they came from are to blame, at least in terms of this one variable about whether
the youths had any adult in their household who helped them with their school homework.
Some 72.1 percent (N = 1408) indicated they did in fact have the benefit of adult help with
homework. Only about a fourth (27.9%, N = 546) did not have the benefit of this factor of
adult help in their home with homework from school.
The Attention-Surplus Disorder
Certainly most Americans know have some idea what the "attention deficit" disorder, it
is a kind of catchall category, not implying a lack of intellect, but it is applied to many
children whom the teacher believes have a hard time focusing on what they want them to
focus on. We are aware of another kind of disorder that arises when too much attention from
someone in authority is given to someone who is a gang member --- we have called this the
attention-surplus disorder.
The survey posed the following scenario to the gang members "when a school teacher or
principal negotiates with a gang member, does this encourage more gang activity". The fact
is, early experts in the field of gang intervention and prevention had emulated the mistakes
that prison wardens made: negotiating with gang leaders, trying to coopt the gang by giving
special attention to the gang leaders, i.e., "consulting" with the gang leaders on how to run the
prison. So if one reads the gang literature closely one will find a report from the National
School Safety Center on gangs recommending that a principal who wants to establish a gang
prevention program should consult with "student gang leaders and solicit their support"
(Stephens, 1988: p. 28).
Actually, there is an entire school of thought that believes in making concessions to gangs,
as if they have earned the right to our attention by simply rising to be the threat that they are.
39
There is a rival school of thought, however, that believes that giving attention or recognition
where it is not deserved could exacerbate the gang problem.
The results of our inquiry here do shed some light on this issue. Some 44.6 percent (N =
855) of these gang members told us that school personnel who negotiate with gang members
actually encourage more gang activity. Admittedly, the gang members are divided on this
issue. As just over half (55.4%, N = 1062) did not believe that teachers and principals who
negotiate with gang members leads to more gang activity. However, over two-fifths of these
gang members do seem to be telling us that for them at least, this surplus attention given to
gang members would in fact encourage more gang activity. So, like most everything, this is
not an absolute issue; it is an issue that means sometimes this type of policy of trying to
negotiate with gang members could in fact backfire and actually spread fuel on the gang
problem itself.
Most Gang Members Have Been Suspended From School Before
The survey asked another important question about the school experiences of gang
members: "have you ever been suspended from school". It appears this must be the
contemporary "red badge of courage" for gang youths or alternatively it is a quality on the
resume of life experiences that makes one an ideal candidate for gravitating towards gang life.
About nine out of ten gang members in our study (88.7%, N = 1727) have in fact been
suspended from school. It is a rarity (11.3%, N = 220) to find a gang member who has not
been suspended from school. We will want to take a closer look at this factor later in our
analysis, to examine gender differences if any.
Two-Thirds of All Gang Members Have Been Expelled From School
This is the issue of school failure, not necessarily because of only low academic
performance, but disciplinary problems that the youth creates in the school environment.
Most students are not expelled for bad grades, bad hygiene, or bad attitudes --- they get
expelled for bad behavior, which today translates into one thing: violent behavior.
The survey therefore asked "have you ever been expelled from school". Some 65.4 percent
(N = 1275) of these gang members have in fact had this experience of being expelled from
school. Only about a third of the gang members (34.6%, N = 675) have not been previously
expelled from school.
THE ROLE OF RELIGION
Religion is one of the major social institutions of any society and therefore we also
examined what role this factor played in the lives of the nearly two-thousand gang members
we surveyed in 1995. We asked these gang members some simple questions that all could
answer. The idea was to assess the extent to which the church could be a part of any solution
to the gang problem in America today. Our results are encouraging in this respect.
We are aware of a number of initiatives that involve the role of religion in the movement
of gang prevention and gang intervention. Some church-based programs have historically
qualified for federal funding for gang programs. Sometimes, however, this comes under
attack from those who want to see a separation of church and state.15
A Third of the Gang Members Have Had Some Religious Training
The survey asked "have you ever completed any religious training by a church, synagogue,
or mosque". Over a third of the gang members (37.1%, N = 678) indicated that they have had
the benefit of such religious training. Still, some 62.9 percent (N = 1149) reported that they
had not had the benefit of such religious training.
40
Three-Fourths Had Positive Experiences With Churches
The survey asked "how would you rate your experiences with churches: ___Liked it
___Disliked it". Some 75.9 percent (N = 1426) of the gang members indicated that they liked
their experiences with church. Only about a fourth (24.1%, N = 452) indicated that they
disliked their church experiences.
Half Rarely If Ever Attend Church
The survey asked "which best describes you: ___I rarely if ever attend church ___I often
attend church". Some 54.2 percent of the gang members (N = 1017) indicated that they rarely
if ever attend church. Still a sizeable proportion of the gang members (45.8%, N = 859)
report that they often attend church. Some of these variables about religion, we hypothesize,
could figure important in explaining other aspects about the gang problem today and we shall
address these in the analysis that follows later in this report.
Nine Out of Ten Gang Members Believe in God
While this aspect of gang life has not been previously investigated with the rigor of the
present research effort, we feel comfortable at this point ruling out one possibility about
gangs: that gang members are godless atheist heathens. The survey asked "which best
describes you: ___I believe in God ___I do not believe in God". Some 89.3 percent (N =
1714) told us they do in fact believe in God. Only 10.7 percent (N = 205) indicated they do
not believe in God.
Where They Expect To Go: 1/3 to Hell, 2/3 to Heaven
A final question about religion posed the following scenario to the gang members: "assume
there is a God, so if you died right now, where would you go? ___To Hell ___To Heaven".
About a third of the gang members (32.3%, N = 564) felt they would go to hell. Most (67.7%,
N = 1184) felt they would be going to Heaven.
THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA
We are especially grateful to a number of gang researchers who have encouraged us to
explore the role of the mass media in relationship to gangs. 16 While much more remains to
be done in regard to exploring the role of the mass media, we did make an effort to include
a number of variables that addressed this important concern. So we believe some of the
findings that follow may begin to shed new light on this issue.
Does Television News Coverage Encourage Others To Join The Gang?
The survey asked "do you feel that when gangs are seen on T.V. news reports that this
makes people want to join gangs". Some 44.2 percent (N = 852) indicated they do feel that
television news coverage will encourage others to join gangs. Still, there is not complete
agreement on this, as it may obviously involve the type of coverage provided, so we are not
surprised to find that 55.8 percent (N = 1074) of the gang members did not feel that television
news coverage encourages others to join the gang.
Two-Thirds of All Gang Members Agree: They Like The Attention They Can Get in the
News
The survey asked "do you feel that gang members like seeing themselves on the news".
Obviously, this is more of an individual effect on the gang itself, perhaps as a morale booster,
a kind of attention getting device. The results show that two-thirds of all gang members
(65.5%, N = 1259) do in fact indicate that gang members like seeing themselves on the news.
About a third (36.1%, N = 687) did not think that gang members like seeing themselves on
the news. Again, perhaps it depends on the nature of the news coverage.
41
Nearly Two-Thirds of Gang Members Agree: They Like Seeing Themselves in the
Newspapers
The survey asked "do you feel that gang members like seeing themselves in the
newspapers". Here some 63.9 percent (N = 1217) of the gang members indicated they do feel
that gang members like this attention they can get in the newspapers. Still, over a third
(36.1%, N = 687) did not feel that gang members would like gaining this type of attention.
Half of the Gang Members Agree: They would like being a part of a "study" where an
important professor might be willing to hang out with them in the hood.
Qualitative research with gang members, ethnography, barrio-ology, participant
observation, the collaborationist school of gang research --- many styles of gang research
involve "hanging with the homies". Most of these researchers have not told us that this was
a benefit to the gang itself in terms of the attention the gang receives.
Our survey asked "do you feel that gang members would like being a part of a study where
an important professor might be willing to hang out with them in the hood". The gang
members are equally divided on this issue, and it deserves much closer scrutiny, perhaps
beginning the analysis with whether those who like it are the younger gang members who are
in fact less knowledgeable about the overall workings of the gang. Some 51.1 percent (N =
979) of the gang members rejected the idea that gang members would like being a part of such
a study, getting the attention of an important professor. Still, some 48.9 percent (N = 938)
said that gang members would like this kind of attention.
In a profile of the Gangster Disciples gang published recently in the Journal of Gang
Research (1995, Fall, Volume 3, Number 1, pp. 54-74) we find another type of attention that
obviously some gangs would like to get from professors: getting professors to testify on behalf
of major gang leaders in a ploy to get the gang leaders paroled from prison.
Two-Fifths of Gang Members Agree: If Less Attention Was Given to Gangs in the Mass
Media That Fewer People Would Join Gangs
There are many ways to interpret an issue like this. Does it mean that these particular gang
members are really saying that they themselves would not have joined a gang had there not
been so much media attention given to gangs in America? No, we cannot say there is that
kind of direct evidence. But in mass media research, just as in advertising research, one must
be able to make inferences from the general to the specific. We suspect that we may be
raising a controversy here in this regard, however, we remind the reader that our study of the
mass media's role in gang life is only a portion of the overall investigation made in Project
GANGPINT. However, we have been able to study this issue at a greater level of
methodological rigor and with a much larger national sample of actual gang members than
any previous research known to us. So in this respect we are treading on new ground
generally.
Our survey asked "Do you feel that if less attention was given to gangs on television, in
newspapers, and in movies that fewer people would join gangs". The results show that 42
percent (N = 813) of the gang members in this study agree: less attention in the mass media
would result in fewer people joining gangs. Still, over half of the gang members (N = 58%,
N = 1125) did not agree that less media attention would stem the flow of youths into the opensystem of gang groups and gang organizations in America today.
The Issue of Lifting the Privacy Protections Traditionally Afforded Juvenile Offenders:
A Third of the Gang Members Agree It Could Discourage Juveniles From Committing
42
A Crime
Juveniles enjoy special rights in the criminal justice system, one of which is an overall
secrecy process, where information about juveniles is prevented from being public
information. This is a long-standing policy that stems from the parens patriae doctrine of
juvenile justice: the idea that the paternalist state knows best what is in the best interests of
the child. We therefore included a rather pointed question in this respect regarding the
prevention or deterrence of juvenile crime.
The survey asked "if the confidentiality of juvenile court was eliminated, and the juvenile
court would be open to the public and the newspapers, do you think this would discourage
more juveniles from committing a crime". Just over a third (35.5%, N = 679) of the gang
members indicated they did believe this would discourage more juveniles from committing
a crime. Still, some 64.5 percent (N = 1235) did not agree that this would have the intended
deterrent effect.
Intense News Coverage of A Gang Appears to Have An Intense Benefit to the Gang
Finally, our survey used the following vignette: "where there is intense news coverage of
your gang, what effect does this have on your gang". Three separate scenarios in terms of
outcomes were then assessed.
The first scenario asked them if it resulted in "makes them proud" or "makes them
embarrassed". The results here show that 71.1 percent felt such intense news coverage makes
the gang members proud. Only 28.9 percent felt it was an embarrassment.
The second scenario asked them if the intense media coverage makes "more members get
involved" in the gang, or makes "fewer members get involved" in the gang. Some 72.9
percent of the gang members studied here indicated it makes more members get involved in
the gang. Only 27.1 percent felt it reduced members getting involved in the gang.
The third scenario was directed specifically at gang recruitment and asked whether "more
new members join" or "fewer new members join" the gang. Here the results seem very clear:
79.4 percent said "more new members join". Only 20.6 percent indicated that "fewer new
members join". We would interpret this as evidence of the attention-surplus disorder: some
types of attention while intended as having a detrimental effect on the gang, appear to the
gang members themselves to have a positive effect or add strength to the vitality of the gang
itself!
BELIEFS ABOUT GANG PREVENTION: VIEWS FROM THE GANG MEMBERS
WHO MIGHT KNOW
About sixteen different questions were developed to examine different aspects of gang
prevention and gang prevention --- about as many researchers who contributed their different
hypotheses for this large national study of gangs and what can be done about the gang
problem in America. While about three-fourths of all cities in the United States today have
some level of a gang presence or gang problem, and that therefore there are literally thousands
of programs, persons, and agencies trying to do something about the gang problem, it is
curious that not much attention has previously been given to the viewpoints of gang members
themselves in terms of what should be done. We are aware of smaller local or provincial
studies, that sometimes have qualitative data or impressions about what a small handful of
gang members might feel about these issues, however our study includes something no other
study has previously attempted: breadth and depth on the issue. For breadth, we have about
two thousand gang members we got data from, from many areas of the USA, and representing
literally all the major American gangs today. For depth, we have not asked one simple
question, we have asked a number of different questions as will be seen.
43
Only Half Agree: Programs Can Effectively Prevent Kids From Getting Involved in
Gangs
It is worthwhile to be realistic in the field of crime prevention, just as it is good to know
those things that can be changed and those things that cannot be changed --- and presumably
the wisdom to recognize the difference between the two. The survey asked "do you think that
programs could be effective in preventing kids from getting involved in gangs". The gang
members are evenly divided on this issue. Half (47.2%, N = 921) did not believe programs
can be effective in preventing kids from getting involved in gangs. Half (52.8%, N= 1031)
did believe that programs can be effective in this regard.
Only Half Agree That Gang Prevention Programs Can Prevent Kids From Joining A
Gang
The survey also asked "do you think gang prevention programs can be effective in
preventing persons from joining a gang". Again, the issue is a coin toss from the perspective
of this large national sample of gang members. Half (49.9%, N = 974) believe gang
prevention programs cannot really prevent kids at all from joining a gang. Half (50.1%, N =
976) did believe that gang prevention programs could be effective in preventing kids from
joining a gang.
----A CURRENT REAL STORY ON GANG PREVENTION SERVICES:
Tommie is 14 years old, a Filipino living on Chicago's northwest side. This is not an
atypical call that comes to the National Gang Crime Research Center. This call was from a
minister who had just discovered what is happening to Tommy.
"There is a Vietnamese gang that is trying to recruit Tommy, and there is a Filipino gang
that is trying to recruit him too, both gang operate in the same neighborhood, and because
Tommy has not joined either yet, both gangs are assaulting him to and from school. What
programs in Chicago could help Tommy?", the minister asked.
I told the minister, sadly, most programs in his area work only with the active gang
members, it is a gang outreach program, so he would have to already be in the gang to benefit
from their services. The minister was chagrined.
I told the minister that what he needed was called "emergency gang recruitment
suppression intervention", a service not offered by most "gang programs" in Chicago. I did
mention the one program that does this work, but which is not funded and therefore acts in
a volunteer capacity. I mentioned that ideally the intervention should include the police,
because the aggressive gang recruitment effort by the two gangs to enlist Tommy is a crime
specifically known as "conscripting" or "drafting", and is on the books in Illinois for
"compelling gang or organizational membership".
The minister's faith was shaken, "give me the names and numbers of the largest gang
programs in Chicago then". Which I did. I explained, that the best was a university type of
experiment, but it existed only in a Hispanic neighborhood, and it did not deal with preventing
gang recruitment, it was aimed at working with known hard core gang members. I explained
the two programs existed in Tommy's neighborhood, one was a gang outreach program and
one was a service program for gang members. The gang outreach program sent street workers
or gang outreach workers to certain neighborhoods to talk with local gang members, they try
to "keep the peace in the hood". The other program tried to get gang members GED's and
jobs.
The exasperated minister said "This does not make sense, just what the hell are they
44
helping the gang for, they need to be helping kids stay out of the gang".
--How Gang Members Feel About Five Contemporary Prevention Issues
Five different questions, each using the identical type of response modes, were used to
also study the viewpoints of gang members on the issues of gang prevention and gang
intervention. These results have been summarized in Table 1.
As seen in Table 1, only 29.4 percent of our large sample of gang members actually agreed
or strongly agreed with the idea that gang problems can be prevented by school education.
Most of the gang members did not accept this viewpoint at all. Nearly half (45.3%) clearly
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the assumption that gang problems can be prevented by
means of school education.
As seen in Table 1, less than a third of these gang members (30.9%) believed that gang
problems could be prevented by means of effective drug prevention and drug education. This
does not bode well knowing that the number one most frequently list "anti-gang" strategy
currently being used by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States is the
"DARE" program (see Project Georgia95; Project Wisconsin95; Knox, 1995).
There is another piece of bad news in Table 1, this is for those in the gang research and
gang intervention arena who assume that the gang problem can be eliminated just by
eliminating some magical single source problem like poverty. It just ain't so, according to our
data. And this is the largest single study of actual gang members on this issue that has yet
surfaced in the literature. It also has some implications for theorists who believe that the
fundamental cause of gang crime problems can be traced to the door of poverty. We have the
beliefs of nearly two thousand gang members for this issue (N = 1925) of the role of poverty,
and these gang members are giving us another perspective entirely. As seen in Table 1, when
asked if they believe that the real cause of gang problems is poverty, only 38 percent agree
or strongly agree --- just as many disagree or strongly disagree! We do not have strong
support one way or the other here.
Table 1 does lend some support for the idea that job training and employment
opportunities are the best solution to the gang problem. At least here we find about half of
the gang members (49.1%, N = 952) agreeing or strongly agreeing to this intervention
philosophy. Still, the other half are either uncertain or disagree to some extent.
Finally, Table 1 provides the results from asking these gang members whether they believe
that strict law enforcement is the best solution to the gang problem. Clearly, 52.5 percent of
the gang members disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that strict law enforcement
is the best solution to the gang problem, which is not necessarily a surprise to us. What is
interesting is that a fourth (27.1%) agreed that a pure suppression policy could be the best
policy.
TABLE 1
45
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BELIEFS ABOUT
VARIOUS GANG PREVENTION STRATEGIES
FROM A LARGE NATIONAL SAMPLE OF GANG MEMBERS
Neither
Strongly
Agree or
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
I feel that gang
problems can be
prevented by
school education.
14.3
15.1
25.3
20.8
24.5
I feel that gang
problems can be
prevented by means
of effective drug
prevention and
drug education.
12.4
18.5
25.7
23.7
19.7
I feel that the
real cause of
gang problems
is poverty.
16.3
21.7
24.8
21.2
15.9
I feel that job
training and
employment opportunities are the
best solution to
the gang problem.
22.4
26.6
24.0
17.5
9.4
16.5
20.4
24.2
28.3
I feel that strict
law enforcement is
the best solution
to the gang
problem.
10.7
Between A Fourth to a Third of Gang Members Think Common Approaches Are A
Waste of Time for Kids At Risk of Joining a Gang
Table 1 presents the results of three additional variables about the value of intervention
and prevention services designed for kids at risk of gang membership. The respondents in
Table 1 have the unique ability to speak to this issue, having been at one time themselves
simply "at risk" of gang membership, and having made the transition into gang life itself.
As seen in Table 1, a third of these gang members (33.6%) agree that educational
programs are a waste of time for kids at risk of gang membership. Still, two-thirds disagree
(66.4%).
46
A third of these gang members (36.9%) also believe that counseling programs are a waste
of time for kids at risk of gang membership. Still, nearly two-thirds (63.1%) disagree.
Finally, a fourth of these gang members (25.6%) believe that job training programs are
also a waste of time for kids at risk of gang membership. Still, three-fourths (74.4%)
disagree.
The overall net effect here is consistent, however, the majority of the gang members do not
view these initiatives as a waste of time for kids at risk of joining a gang. And that we view
as good news.
TABLE 2
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR HOW
GANG MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT THE PREVENTION VALUE
OF EDUCATIONAL, COUNSELING, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
AGREE
N
%
DISAGREE
N
%
For kids at risk of joining
a gang, getting involved in
educational programs is a
waste of time.
653
33.6
1289
66.4
counseling programs is a
waste of time.
717
36.9
1228
63.1
job training programs is a
waste of time.
500
25.6
1450
74.4
Ratings About the Efficacy of Recreational Like the YMCA
The survey asked "to what extent are recreational programs like the YMCA good for
preventing kids from joining a gang".17 We were fortunate to have used a complete scale of
responses this kind of rating. The respondent was asked to circle one number that came
closest to their rating for the efficacy of recreational programs like the YMCA as programs
for preventing kids from joining a gang. The results of this question are provided in Table
3.
TABLE 3
47
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR
SCALE SCORE RESPONSE RATINGS:
THE VIEWPOINTS OF N = 1,402 GANG MEMBERS ON
WHETHER RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS LIKE THE YMCA
ARE EFFECTIVE IN KEEPING KIDS OUT OF GANGS
Not good at all
for preventing
kids from
joining gangs
Rating
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N
166
88
69
137
135
302
124
91
84
40
166
%
11.8
6.3
4.9
9.8
9.6
21.5
8.8
6.5
6.0
2.9
11.8
Very good at
preventing kids
from joining gangs
As seen in Table 3, a normal distribution exists here, with both extreme views of
ineffectiveness and high effectiveness, with most ratings clustering near the middle of the
scale. The mean or average scale score for Table 3 was 4.6 on a zero to ten point score, the
higher the score the higher the estimated effectiveness of recreational programs in terms of
preventing kids from joining a gang.
Half of the Gang Members Question The Effectiveness of Social Workers
Three different questions were directed at the effectiveness of social workers in various
roles of gang prevention and gang intervention. The results of these questions for gang
members are provided in Table 4.
TABLE 4
48
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Beliefs About
The Effectiveness of Social Workers in Gang Prevention
Among A Large National Sample of Gang Members
NO
Do you think social workers
can be effective in reaching
out to persons who might
want to quit the gang?
YES
N
%
N
%
829
43.0
1099
57.0
930
49.1
966
50.9
1016
52.8
908
47.2
can be effective in helping
kids stay out of gangs?
Do you think that recreation
programs, after school
programs, or social workers
might have been able to
prevent you from joining
a gang?
As seen in Table 4, we really have a rather divided set of beliefs on the effectiveness of
social workers in all areas of potential prevention and intervention impact. Overall, about half
of the gang members believe social workers can be effective, and about half do not believe
social workers can be effective in these capacities of: (1) reaching out to persons who might
want to quit the gang, (2) helping kids stay out of gangs, and (3) whether they themselves
would could have been prevented from joining a gang.
What the findings in Table 4 demonstrate is that when we ask nearly two thousand gang
members themselves, only about half believe that a social worker can have any meaningful
impact on their lives. Half do not believe a social worker can be effective in these three
common roles of combatting the modern gang problem.
We recognize, however, that these findings may have their best interpretation as covert
measures of the "approachability" of the gang members themselves to such initiatives: that
is, the extent to which they recognize the potential positive value of social workers they may
also be saying their are themselves amenable to such efforts. Further analysis is warranted
on these variables, and we promise in later sections of this report to address this matter. One
hypothesis might be that these three measures are really surrogate measures of the willingness
of the gang members to enter into anti-gang counseling. How these variables correlate, for
example, with attempts to quit the gang should provide some valuable insights into these gang
members. But this analysis must wait for a later chapter.
Program Preferences From Gang Members on Gang Prevention
The researchers in this study were well aware of the kinds of programs currently being
used in the war against gangs nationwide. The researchers therefore developed a special
question that sought to obtain the preference function of a large sample of gang members on
what single program service component would be most effective in getting young people to
49
stay out of gangs.
The question and its instructions read as follows: "what is the ONE best kind of program
you think is most effective in getting young people to stay out of gangs? (Check ONE answer
ONLY)". The five choices included: employment, counseling programs, live-in residential
programs with counseling and education, vocational/education programs, and a social worker
who works with youngsters in the neighborhoods.
The single largest preference (39.4%, N = 667) was for "employment" services.
There was a tie for second-place: about a fifth (20.4%, N = 346) thought the most
effective service was that of a live-in residential program with counseling and education; also
about a fifth (20.3%, N = 344) thought that a social worker who works with youngsters in the
neighborhood was the most effective service.
Clear losers in this race were: "counseling programs" (9.9%, N = 167) and
"vocational/education programs" (9.9%, N = 344).
From the viewpoint of nearly two-thousand young persons who should know then,
employment is the component of choice for preventing kids from joining a gang.
Three-Fourths of the Gang Members Believe That Most People in Gangs Want Out
Sooner Or Later
Some 74.7 percent (N = 1414) of the gang members in this study indicated that they agree
that "most people in gangs want out sooner or later". Only a fourth (25.3%, N = 478) did not
agree that most gang members want to eventually leave the gang. So, from this perspective
it would appear that even once an individual is on the "gang ladder": that is, climbing up the
successive stages of being a threat and risk to self, to the community, to public safety, etc --for a substantial number of these gang members, the gang appears to lack a lifelong
commitment! That is good news for purposes of tertiary prevention services. It would appear
to justify some sophisticated, but potentially costly, efforts at inducing gang defection. We
can, as will be seen, only recommend that such programs be accountable in terms of a
strategic gang abatement plan that uses a professional gang assessment technology to identify
potential candidates for such a program. Historically in American social services, any client
who steps forward and volunteers for the help is automatically ruled eligible for the services.
We believe some serious screening must be undertaken, based on classification and
assessment, in order to make the benefits outweigh the costs of such endeavors. That means
using criteria for maximizing the potential impact of the program, it means identifying by
objective assessment procedures, those who can be potentially "flipped" out of gang life. It
means, conversely, rejecting those candidates whose assessment does not justify intervention
based on the low probability of a favorable outcome adjustment from the intervention.
Three-Fifths Do Not Believe a Boot Camp Could Influence People to Get Out of A Gang
The survey asked "do you think a boot camp could influence some people to get out of a
gang". The results show that 60.1 percent (N = 1149) do not believe a boot camp could
influence someone to "drop their flag". Still over a third (39.9%, N = 764) of these gang
members did believe a boot camp might be able to break the hold that a gang has on some
people.
THE VALUE OF A REAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT: LOOKING AT THE SERVICE
UTILIZATION BACKGROUNDS IN THE GANG MEMBER POPULATION
For the individual gang member, as for anyone in the offender population, a proper needs
assessment begins with the social service history of the person. That means ascertaining what
programs and treatments has the individual previously been through? What has not yet been
50
tried?
The greatest moral abomination of our times is that the gang problem has in recent years
come to affect the lives of so very many American citizens and the hard research into what
can or cannot work --- and a national needs assessment is the first step in that direction --- has
been so abysmally absent. Rather than focusing on what works in the natural recurring order
of social service intervention arrangements, those actors already positioned to potentially be
mobilized in the war against gangs, much of the federal research initiative related to
evaluation has been either that directed down deadends or focusing on pet programs of
unproven worth. Many of the present authors are not confident that the best interests of the
American public are served when government agencies that award such "gang research
contracts" are subject to political preferences: that is, until a true competitive procurement
system is in place. It is not in place at present. Federal agencies like NIJ and DHHS and
others do not have true competitive bidding, and often use a research proposal review system
that relies on Washington, D.C.-based consulting firms that can manipulate the federal
procurement system to their own benefit.
A Big Long List of Previous Intervention Experiences
Table 5 presents the long list of factors the present researchers measured on these gang
members in terms of whether or not they had ever previously benefited from these
intervention experiences.
TABLE 5
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Whether
The Gang Members Have Previously Benefited From
Twelve Different Types of Services and Programs
NO
Used crisis hotline
Court-mandated therapy
Ever in group therapy
Ever has 1-on-1
professional tutor
Ever in a drug/substance
abuse counseling
program
Ever in a job skills
program
Ever in a job training
program
Were parents active
in the PTA
Ever involved in any
counseling program
Ever involved in the
big brother/big
sister program
N
%
1635 84.1
849 46.3
930 47.4
YES
N
%
308 15.9
985 53.7
1034 52.6
1286
66.2
658
33.8
1117
57.7
818
42.3
1093
55.9
861
44.1
1158
59.8
778
40.2
1339
71.1
544
28.9
782
40.3
1159
59.7
1569
80.7
375
19.3
51
Ever involved in the
YMCA recreation
program
Ever complete the
D.A.R.E. anti-drug
abuse program
1091
56.3
846
43.7
1059
54.6
880
45.4
Local or National "Crisis" Hotline Telephone Services
These have always been popular since the advent of telephone answering machines and
switchboards. Our survey therefore asked "have you ever called a local or national hotline
telephone number seeking help with a personal problem". The vast majority of these gang
members (84.1%, N = 1635) never used a crisis hotline service. Only 15.9 percent of these
gang members were the type to call a crisis hotline telephone service for help with a personal
problem. We have not mentioned this until now, but we do have a large non-gang member
sample, so it will be of some interest on this and other variables to see if any significant
differences emerge from comparisons between gang and non-gang youths. That will,
however, have to wait for a subsequent section of this report.
High Prevalence of Mental Health Services
The survey asked "have you ever been in court-mandated psychological counseling or
therapy".18 What this usually means is the juvenile judge makes an agreement with the
juvenile delinquent to enter some kind of "treatment" and the sentence will be suspended on
the finding of delinquency. It is a kind of probation sanction, one of a host of diversions from
a sentence of incarceration in the juvenile correctional system.
About half (53.7%, N = 985) of these gang members report that they have in fact been in
such court-mandated psychological counseling or therapy. Apparently it didn't do any good.
Because most of these are gang members in trouble with the law.
About half of the gang members (46.3%, N = 849) have been untouched by such mental
health services.
Half of the Gang Members Have Previously Been in Group Therapy
Some 52.7 percent (N = 985) of these gang members report that they have been involved
in group therapy before. The other half (47.4%, N = 930) have not been previously involved
in group therapy. The scope and extent of this previous experience with group therapy is
consistent with the level of court-mandated psychological counseling found in an earlier
variable.
A Third of the Gang Members Have Previously Had a One-on-One Professional Tutor
A third of the gang members in this national research project (33.8%, N = 658) indicated
that they have in fact previously had the benefit of a one-on-one professional tutor. Most of
these gang members (66.2%, N = 1,286) have not had this previous service experience.
It is possible to test some implications of this variable, as others, by examining this
intervention experience in relationship to other known educational outcomes: the lag in
educational attainment by one's age-grade level, being suspended from school, being expelled
from school, etc.
Two-Fifths Have Been in a Substance Abuse Counseling Program.
Two-fifths (42.3%, N = 818) of the gang members in our study report that they have
previously been in a drug/substance abuse counseling program. Several of the researchers
who have previously studied the drug abuse history of this same population (Knox and
Tromanhauser, 1991; Knox, Laske, and Tromanhauser, 1992; Morris, et al, 1995) would
52
probably argue that this same population has a higher rate of eligibility for such programs than
this rate of utilization. Over half (57.7%, N = 1,117) of the gang members indicated they had
not been in such a substance abuse counseling program in the past.
Two-Fifths Have Been in a Job Skills Program
Two-fifths of these gang members (44.1%, N = 861) report that they have previously been
in a job skills program. Similarly, some 55.9 percent (N = 1093) indicated they have not in
the past been involved in a job skills program.
Two-Fifths Have Been in a Job Training Program
Two-fifths of these gang members (40.2%, N = 778) also report that they have previously
been involved in a job training program. Thus, 59.9 percent (N = 1,158) of the gang members
indicated they have not had the benefit of previously being involved in a job training program.
A Fourth Had Parents Active in the PTA
Only about a fourth of these gang members (28.9%, N = 544) indicated that their parents
are or were active in the PTA. Thus, for most of the gang members (71.1%, N = 1,339)
apparently their parents were active in something other than the Parent's Teacher's Association
in their respective national neighborhoods.
About Three-Fifths Have Been Involved in A Counseling Program Before
As seen in Table 5, some 59.7 percent (N = 1,159) of these gang members have previously
been involved in some kind of counseling program. Some 40.3 percent of the gang members
(N= 782) indicated they had never been involved in a counseling program.
Four-Fifths Have Never Been Involved in the Big Brother/Big Sister Program
Most of these gang members (80.7%, N = 1,569) report that they have never been involved
in a big brother/big sister program. Only a fifth (19.3%, N = 375) indicated they had the
benefit of this type of social service.
Two-Fifths Have Been Involved in a YMCA Recreation Program Before
Some 43.7 percent (N = 846) of the gang members reported that they had the benefit of
YMCA recreational programs. Just over half of the gang members (56.3%, N= 1,091)
indicated that they had not previously had the benefit of YMCA recreational programs.
Two-Fifths Have Been Completed the D.A.R.E. Anti-Drug Abuse Program
Of some interest, 45.4 percent (N = 880) of these gang members reported that they had
completed the D.A.R.E. anti-drug abuse program. Similarly, 54.6 percent (N = 1,059)
indicated they had not completed the famous DARE program.
GANG INVOLVEMENT THROUGH THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT LIFESPAN
Through a series of questions that were interspersed throughout the survey instrument, this
research has been able to put together the first human development lifespan approach to the
understanding of the modern American gang member. Figure 3 below presents a summary
of these major milestones in the life event history of our large national sample of gang
members from 8 states.
FIGURE 3
Mean Ages For Major Life Events Among A
53
Large National Sample of Gang Members
Mean Age Major Event in Gang Involvement
8.9
First heard anything about "gangs".
9.2
First "bullied" in school context.
9.2
First met someone in a gang.
10.4
First "bullied" someone else in school.
11.3
First fired a pistol or revolver.
11.3
First saw killing or injury from gang violence.
12.0
First joined the gang.
12.0
First arrested for any criminal offense.
12.3
First got their own real gun.
13.0
First got a permanent tattoo.
16.5
Current actual age of the gang member.
24.1
Age they expect to first get married.
26.1
Age they expect to quit the gang.
59.5
Age they expect to die.
Age First Heard Anything About Gangs
The survey asked "how old were you when you first heard anything about gangs? When
I was _____years old". The results ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 21 years, with a mean
or average age of 8.9 years. But some trends were apparent here. Half (51.8%) had first
heard anything about gangs before the age of nine years old. Some 88.1 percent had first
heard something about gangs before they were 13 years old. By age eleven, 79.1 percent had
already first heard something about gangs.
Age First Met A Gang Member
The survey asked "how old were you when you first met someone who was in a gang?
When I was ___years old". The results ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 32 years, with a
mean or average age of 9.2 years. But some trends were apparent here too. Some 83.6
percent had first met a gang member before they were 13 years old. So most first met a gang
member when they were probably still in elementary school.
Age First Fired a Pistol or Revolver
The survey asked "how old were you when you first fired a pistol or revolver" _____years
old or ___Never did it". Only about 14.2 percent indicated they had never fired a pistol or
revolver. Which leaves age data available for N = 1573. For this group who had fired a pistol
or revolver (N = 1573), the results ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 21 years of age, with
a mean or average of 11.3 years. Half (53.9%) had first fired a pistol or revolver before the
age of 13.
Age First Saw Someone Killed or Seriously Injured by Gang Violence
The survey asked "how old were you when you first saw someone killed or seriously
injured by gang violence. ___years old or ___never". Some 16.5 percent claimed never to
have seen anyone killed or seriously injured by gang violence. Thus, data was available for
a total of N = 1569 on this variable for age of first seeing gang trauma. The results ranged
from a low of 1 to a high of 26 years old, with a mean or average of 11.3 years old. Some 64
percent had first seen gang trauma before the age of 14. Half (48.9%) had first seen gang
54
trauma before they were 13 years of age.
Age They Were First Bullied By Anyone
The survey asked "at what age were you first bullied by someone in school". The results
ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 19, with a mean or average of 9.2 years old. Half (51.9%)
had first been bullied before the age of 10. Some 88.3 percent had first been bullied before
the age of 13. Bullying behavior like a lot of other behavior would appear to need most
prevention and intervention in the elementary school years.
Age They First Bullied Someone Else
The survey asked "at what age did you first bully someone else in school". The results
ranged from a low of 3 to a high of 18, with a mean or average of 10.4 years old. Some 72.5
percent had first bullied someone else before the age of 13, that is from 3 to 12 years old! We
suspect this bullying behavior to be a variable that may tend to help explain variations in other
violent behavior by these gang members, but this will have to wait until a later chapter in this
report.
Current Age of the Gang Members
The survey asked "how old are you today in years. I am ___ years old". The results ranged
from a low of 10 to a high of 56 years old, with the mean or average of 16.5 years old. Some
93.3 percent were teenagers, that is 13 to 19 years of age. Only 1.3 percent were 12 or under.
Only 4.1 percent were 20 or older.
Age First Got a Permanent Tattoo
The survey asked "at what age did you first get a permanent tattoo. When I was ____ years
old". The results ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 27 years of age, with a mean or average
age of 13.0 years old. Half (50.5%) had first got a permanent tattoo before the age of 14. The
ages of 12 through 16 appear to be the tattoo years, as this age range accounted for 76.3
percent of all cases.
Age First Arrested for Any Crime
The survey asked "at what age were you first arrested? When I was ___ years old". The
results ranged from a low of 5 to a high of 38, with the mean or average being 12.0 years old.
Some 80.1 percent had been arrested before the age of 15. Half (49.9%) had first been
arrested before the age of 13. By the way, the mean or average number of times previously
arrested for this sample of gang members was 13.6 prior arrests.
Age They Expect to Get Legally Married to Someone
The survey asked "at what age will you ever get legally married to someone. When I am
____ years old". The results ranged from a low of 16 to a high of 60 years old, with a mean
or average of 24.1 years. Some 83.3 percent thought they would be married before the age
of 30. Half (52.6%) thought they would be married before the age of 24.
Age First Got A Real Gun
The survey asked "at what age did you get your first real gun? When I was ___ years old
or ___Does not apply". Some 17.8 percent indicated this does not apply, that is they never
had a real gun of their own. Thus, age data was available on N = 1423 gang members. Here
the age of first getting a real gun of their own ranged from a low of 6 to a high of 42, with a
mean or average of 12.3 years old.
Age First Joined A Gang
55
The survey asked "at what age did you join a gang? When I was ____ years old". The
results ranged from a low of 5 to a high of 32, with a mean or average of 12.0 years. Half
(48.1%) had joined before they were 13 years old. The primary gang joining years appear to
be age 11 through 15, which accounts for 73.1 percent of the cases! If we could only insulate
our youths for this four year period, perhaps through some type of national service program
designed for children at risk of gang membership, we could effectively cut-off the vast
reservoir of most new gang recruits to the modern gang. The gang, as an open-system,
depends on such new recruits to stay in business. Without new recruits the gang, like any
other social group or social organization, would cease to function effectively. One of the
primary goals of gang suppression and gang prevention is to make sure the gang does not
function effectively: particularly at attracting new gang recruits!
Age These Gang Members Think They Will Die
The survey asked "at what age do you think you will die. When I am ____ years old." No
doubt about it, this question provoked the most panic and hostile reactions among the gang
members. It struck a painful spot in their psyche. The results ranged from a low of 16 to a
high of 100, with a mean or average age of 59.5 years old. A third of the these gang members
did not believe they would live to be 40 years old. A fourth of these gang members (25.1%)
did not believe they would live to see their 28th birthday!
Age The Gang Members Believe They Will Quit The Gang
The survey asked "at what age do you think you will quit the gang. When I am ____ years
old". The results ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 100, with a mean or average of 26.1
years old. Some 70.2 percent thought they might actually quit the gang before their 22nd
birthday.
PERSONALITY FACTORS
Several variables were used in the survey that provide insights on the personality of the
gang members. These personality factors were hypothesizes introduced into the research
project on the basis that differences in personality traits may produce differences in the degree
to which gang members have taken advantage of certain social services. It is also possible
that these personality factors could play a role as variables that interact with experience in the
gang.
Belief In Luck As A Subcultural Value
The survey asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement:
"success is more dependent on luck than on real ability".19 Most of the gang members in this
sample disagreed (62.7%, N = 1208). However, a sizeable proportion of the gang members
did agree with this belief (37.3%, N = 720) making it potentially worthy as a variable for
further analysis.
Most Gang Members Worry About The Future Facing Today's Children
The survey asked the respondents to indicate if they felt the following statement was true
or false: "I worry about the future facing today's children".20 We appear to have hit some
underlying dimension of strong beliefs among these gang members, because most (80.7%, N
= 1,575) of the gang members felt this statement was true. Only a fifth of the gang members
(19.3%, N = 377) indicated that they do not worry about the future facing today's children.
Authoritarian Stereotypy Among Gang Members
56
The survey asked the gang members whether they agreed or disagreed with the following
statement: "people can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong".21 Some
62.1 percent (N = 1176) of the gang members agreed with this authoritarian stereotypic
generalization about human beings. Some 37.9 percent (N = 718) of the gang members
disagreed with this idea that all people can be divided into two classes: the weak, and the
strong.
THE NATURE OF THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES IN THE GANG
In this chapter, we are only describing the background and characteristics of the gang
member sample in our research. So there are a great many factors that must be summarized
here about their own unique experiences in gang life. A subsequent section will examine a
wide range of variables that sought to understand the nature of the gang as an organization
itself based on the information supplied from these same respondents. Recall that all of the
N = 1,994 respondents being discussed in this chapter are self-reported gang members: they
admit simply to having ever joined a gang. We will later see that some of these are now
inactive.
Almost All Have Gang Friends
A question we have replicated in the present research from our previous projects is a
variable predictive of gang membership itself. It is the question "how many of your close
friends and associates are gang members?" The forced choice response modes provided for
options as follows: zero, one, two, three, four, and five or more. Only 3.7 percent indicated
that they had no such gang friends, this is logically possible because such a gang member
could have now denounced his/her gang and disassociated with it. Some 11.6 percent of the
gang members indicated they had between one to four such gang friends. The vast majority
of the gang members (84.7%, N = 1,573) indicated that they had "five or more" gang friends.
Age They First Joined the Gang
Table 6 provides the complete age distribution for the time at which these persons first
joined a gang. As seen in Table 6, some joined as early as age 5, perhaps as "peewees", or
perhaps they grew up in a gang. A clear trend exists here: almost all of these gang members,
some 99 percent first joined the gang on or before the age of 17. The years of greatest risk
for gang joining behavior appear to be ages 11 to 15. Some 93.4 percent of the respondents
indicated they had already joined the gang by the age of 15. So from a prevention point of
view, seeing that most gang members join before the age of 16, these years of puberty to about
16 are those most vulnerable to the threat of gang recruitment.
Clearly, as well from Table 6, gang prevention needs to start in Kindergarten and continue
through the elementary school years to effectively prevent modern children from joining a
gang. Almost a third of these gang members (32.4%) had first joined the gang before their
12th birthday.
TABLE 6
57
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE
AGE AT WHICH THESE GANG MEMBERS FIRST JOINED A GANG
Age Period
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
32
N
26
18
30
52
65
142
200
258
358
244
143
69
25
7
4
2
1
%
1.6
1.1
1.8
3.2
4.0
8.7
12.2
15.7
21.8
14.8
8.7
4.2
1.5
.4
.2
.1
.1
What Gang Names Are Represented in This Sample
We believe, quite literally, all major criminal gangs: it is a ten page long list. It includes
all major gangs in the communities and correctional environments, from the Aryan
Brotherhood to White Fence, many sets of Crips and Bloods, most all of the People and Folks
gangs. It includes a couple hundred Gangster Disciples, lots of Latin Kings and Black P.
Stone Nation gang members. Several hundred 200 different gangs are represented in this
sample.
What Gang "Nations" Are Represented in This Sample
Several gang "nations" exist, these are patterns of affiliation, that represent an umbrella
identity. Table 7 provides the distribution by known gang nation affiliation for our sample.
As can be seen in Table 7, about a third of the gang members in this sample are "Folks".
There are few Nortenos, but the rule of thumb is that Surenos do substantially outnumber
Nortenos; just as Crips outnumber Bloods. The "other" category includes extremist gangs and
white gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood, as well as motorcycle gang groups.
58
TABLE 7
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of The Gang Nation
Affiliations Within The Sample of Gang Members
N
Crips
267
Folks
563
Bloods 143
Peoples 304
Surenos 221
Nortenos 16
Other
183
-----Totals 1,697
%
15.7
33.2
8.4
17.9
13.0
.9
10.8
------100.0
Tenure in The Gang: Number of Years of Gang Involvement
A separate question asked the gang members "how many years have you been in a gang
during your entire life". The results show that their time in the gang ranged from within the
last month or to a high of 32 years ago. As a trend, some 40.2 percent of these gang members
had been in a gang for five years or more. The mean or average tenure in the gang was 4.5
years.
Current Active Gang Membership
While all of the gang members in the sample studied in this chapter have joined a gang at
some time in their life, it is another matter as to whether they are currently still active in their
respective gang organizations. So the survey asked the follow-up question "are you currently
a member of any gang group or gang organization". The results show that 71.9 percent (N =
1389) are reporting that they are still active gang members. About a fourth (28.1%, N = 542)
indicated that they are not currently active gang members.
Not Currently Active, But Separately Report They Are Still Gang Associates
From the preceding finding, we found some N = 542 gang members who indicated they
were not current members. We can now take advantage of a separate question designed to
isolate those who have not completely "dropped their flag", that is resigned from the gang
totally, but who are simply now gang associates. So the survey asked the additional question
"do you consider yourself a current associate of any gang group or gang organization". So
within the N = 542 respondents who had joined a gang but who had indicated they were not
current members, what we find now is that N = 153 of these are reporting that they are in fact
gang associates. That leaves only N = 389 in our gang sample who are neither active
members or active associates of the gang.
Surprise: Nearly Half Have Tried to Quit the Gang
The survey asked "have you ever attempted to quit the gang". Some 46.7 percent (N = 864)
of these gang members indicated that they have in fact attempted to quit the gang. The other
half (53.3%, N = 987) have never attempted to quit the gang.
Two-Thirds Have Held "Rank" or Leadership in Their Gang
59
The survey asked "have you ever held rank or any leadership position in any gang". Twothirds (65.3%, N = 1,242) of the gang members report that they have in fact held "rank" or a
leadership position in their gang. Only a third of the gang members (34.7%, N = 661)
indicated that they have never held rank or any leadership position in the gang.
We will find later in this report how this variable helps to differentiate between the various
"gradations" of gang involvement even among gang members. It is a very important variable
in the gang risk continuum.
Two-Fifths Have Been "Violated" By Their Gang
The survey asked "have you ever been violated (received a beating) by your own gang for
a violation". Some 44.3 percent (N = 799) of the gang members indicated that they had in fact
experienced this violent internal disciplinary procedure commonly used by American gangs
today. Just over half of the gang members (55.7%, N = 1003) reported that they had not been
violated by their own gang.
Over Half of the Gang Members Indicate Their Gang Has a Special Language Code
This is a huge area that has not been researched, and even less is known where it should
probably have emerged (i.e., among qualitative gang researchers). There are thousands of
such special codes used by gangs, all common words and expressions and letters having
special double meaning to the gang members. For example, a hat bearing the expression
"South Central Love" is really a Crip representation, where "Love" has special meaning: it
means Let Our Vision Educate.
The survey asked "does your gang have a special language code". Some 58.9 percent (N
= 1082) of the gang members indicated their gang does have such a language code. Some
41.1 percent (N = 756) indicated their gang does not have a language code.
A gang with a language code is more complex as a social formation than a gang without
it. So, this variable, like many we used in Project GANGPINT will help us to examine the
variation in the sophistication of gangs as groups and organizations.
Two-Thirds of the Gang Members Indicate That Their Gang Has Written Rules
The survey asked "does your gang have written rules". Some 66.1 percent (N = 1212)
indicated their gang does in fact have written rules. Only a third (33.9%, N = 621) of the gang
members indicated their gang does not have written rules.
This too is a variable that helps us to measure the organizational complexity of the gang.
Obviously, a gang without rules is probably more fluid, perhaps even more horizontal in
structure, and could be more loose knit. Conversely, a gang with written rules may be a more
tightly knit group. There is no argument on the issue of organizational sophistication: a gang
with written rules is more complex as a social form than one without the benefit of a written
code of conduct for its members. We will later see how this kind of variable figures in the
"gang risk continuum".
Most Gangs Are Adult Controlled Groups and Organizations
The term "youth gang" is itself somewhat of a misnomer when it comes to the major gangs
in America today. True that most gang members are themselves young, typically teenagers.
However, we have seen from other sources that the real leaders at the top of these major gangs
are in fact older adults, many in their forties and even older. So where we have a gang where
most of the members are youths, but the real top leaders are middle-aged adults, is it really a
"youth" gang when adults drive the enterprise?
Little data has existed nationally on this issue until the present. Our survey therefore
60
asked the question "does your gang have adult leaders who have been in the gang for many
years". The results show that 84.8 percent (N = 1556) of the gang members in our sample
indicated that their gang does in fact have such older adult leaders. Only 15.2 percent (N =
278) of the gang members did not come from a gang that had older adult leaders with long
tenure.
Most Gangs Exist in Multiple Geographical Areas
The survey asked "does your gang exist in several geographical areas or does it exist in just
one area". Three-fourths of the gang members (74.8%, N = 1297) indicated that their gang
exists in several geographical areas. A fourth (25.2%, N 437) indicated their gang exists in
only one geographical area.
Thus, here again is an issue of organizational complexity: the ability to exist in two or more
geographical areas makes for a more sophisticated gang than one that exists only on one
specific street corner.
The Indigenous Formation Controversy
Some researchers have argued that gangs arise locally in many cities in the United States
today in an indigenous formation process, that is it happens naturally without any national
conspiracy, without any help from "gang ambassadors", and without any outside gang
influence. This is controversy will not be resolved completely here, however we are the first
to shed this amount of empirical light on the issue. What we suspected was that there was
natural variation in this problem of gang proliferation: some do arise locally in an organic
process, while others arise in a mechanical process: someone was trying to establish another
chapter of the gang and succeeded with the benefit of contact with the parent gang.
Our survey asked "did your gang arise on its own locally without contact from gangs by
the same name from another area". What we found was a half and half split. Half (50.9%,
N = 890) of the gang members said "no". Half (49.1%, N = 857) said "yes". Thus, half
(50.9%) indicated their gang did not arise on its own locally without contact from gangs by
the same name in another area. And half (49.1%) indicated their gang did arise locally
without contact from gangs by the same name from another area.
What this seems to suggest is very clear: regarding the enormous amount of gang
proliferation in the United States today, where three-fourths of all American cities now have
some type of gang problem, and where many report the same gang names appearing in many
states as well --- in about half of these cases, it may in fact be indigenous formation, but in
about half of the cases it may very well be some type of direct contamination (i.e., the familial
gang transplant phenomenon, etc).
Only A Fourth of the Gangs Copied the Symbols and Name of An Out-of-Town Gang
The survey asked "did your gang copy the symbols and name of an out-of-town gang". A
fourth (25.2%, N = 464) of the gang members indicated that their gang did in fact copy the
symbols and name of an out-of-town gang. But three-fourths (74.8%, N = 1377) indicated
their gang did not simply copy the symbols and name of an out-of-town gang.
Half Had Contact With the Same Gang in Another City
The survey asked "did your gang first arise by contact with the same gang in another city".
Half of the gang members (48.8%, N = 899) report that their gang did in fact first arise by
contact with the same gang in another city. Thus, for half (48.8%) there was external gang
contact that gave rise to the local chapter of the gang. But for the other half (51.2%, N = 942)
their gang did not first arise by contact with the same gang in another city. Thus, there seems
61
to be high reliability on this issue as this is very similar to an earlier question about the same
phenomenon.
Thus, we have basically two differently worded questions that address the same underlying
issue: gang proliferation. Some try to reduce the issue to simply "gang migration", which is
only one of the ways the gang problem spreads in America today. There are many ways that
the gang problem spreads in America today.
About Three-Fourths of the Gang Members Report Their Gang Does Provide Money
to Needy Members in or out of Jail/Prison
The survey asked "does your gang provide money to needy members in or out of
jail/prison". Some 73.9 percent (N = 1334) of the gang members indicated their gang does
provide this kind of benevolent economic function to its needy members. About a fourth
(26.1%, N = 472) of the gang members indicated their gang does not have the capability of
acting like a trade union group. Obviously, this is also a variable that measures organizational
complexity, as one with such a welfare function is going to be more complex than one without
such an ability.
Over Half Have Committed A Crime For Financial Gain With Their Gang
The survey asked "have you ever committed a crime for financial gain with your gang".
Some 60.7 percent (N = 1111) of the gang members reported that they have in fact committed
a crime for financial gain with their gang. Some 39.3 percent (N = 718) indicated they had
not committed a crime for financial gain with their gang.
Over a Third Report Their Gang Has a Private Attorney Used for Defending Its
Members in Criminal Matters
The survey asked "does your gang have a private attorney that you use for defending your
members in criminal matters". There are many twists on how this actually works in the
modern gang world. In some gangs like the Latin Kings, a smarter youth growing up with
gang members might be offered a gang scholarship: the gang will pay all tuition and related
costs for going to law school, but the person must represent the gang when needed as well.
Such was an offer made but not accepted to a lawyer who is now serving as an elected
member of the Chicago City Council. More typically, the gang has a small law firm that the
gang provides a lot of business to, criminal and civil (i.e., election law, corporate law,
business and contract law, etc).
What we found was that 35.6 percent (N = 625) of the gang members indicate that their
gang does in fact have a private attorney that is used to defend the gang's members in criminal
matters.
Still, some 64.4 percent (N = 1129) indicated their gang does not have a private attorney
that is used for this purpose.
More Likely Is the Situation Where The Gang Keeps An Account That Pays for Only
Legal Defense
The survey asked "does your gang keep an account that pays for only legal defense". What
we found here, a more generalized question, was that 43.7 percent (N = 778) of the gang
members report that their gang does in fact keep an account that pays for only legal defense.
This is typically an amount of money set aside in their gang treasury.
So 56.3 percent (N = 1003) of the gang members indicated that their gang does not have
this type of organizational capability.
62
Three-Fourths Indicate Their Gang Holds Regular Meetings
The survey asked "does your gang hold regular meetings". Some 76.2 percent (N = 1394)
indicated their gang does in fact hold regular meetings. This is typically once a week. There
are also other very predictable patterns: People gangs like the Latin Kings who "ride under
the five pointed star" often give much numismatic significance to the number "5", and
therefore predictably meet on Fridays, the fifth day of the week. Folks gangs like the
Gangster Disciples often meet on Saturday or the sixth day of the week, corresponding to their
"six pointed star", i.e., their totem of gang representation.
Thus, only about a fourth (23.8%, N= 436) of the gang members indicated that their gang
does not hold regular meetings.
How Long Their Gang Has Existed in Years
The survey asked a number of questions directed at understanding not the individual gang
member, but rather directed at understanding their gang organization itself. One of these was
this variable on gang duration. The survey asked "how long has your gang existed in your
town? Since 19____ or for about ____ years". All answers were converted to number of
years the gang has existed as an entity in that town.
The results indicate a large range of values between a low of 1 year to a high of 52 years.
The mean or average length of time the gangs have existed is 18.1 years.
Some other trends are very noteworthy here. Only 14.1 percent (N = 149) of the gang
members indicated that their gang had existed for five years or less. In fact, some 70.3
percent of the gang members indicated their gang had been around for ten years or more!
Another Test of the Indigenous Formation Issue
The survey asked the gang members "which best describes your gang: ___Homegrown
(emerged on its own in our city) ___An official branch of a larger national gang". The results
are consistent with earlier findings on the issue.
Some 60.9 percent (N = 981) indicated that their gang was an official branch of a larger
national gang.
Some 40.2 percent (N = 707) indicated that their gang was homegrown, that is it emerged
on its on in their city.
Over Half of the Gang Members Indicate Their Gang Maintains a Treasury
The survey asked "does the gang you are in have a treasury". Some 59.8 percent (N =
1052) indicated their gang does maintain such a treasury. Some 40.2 percent (N = 707)
reported that their gang does not maintain a treasury. Obviously, this is also an important
measure of the organizational sophistication of a gang.
Two-Fifths of the Gang Members Report Their Gang Requires Its Members to Pay
Regular Dues
The survey asked "does your gang require members to pay regular dues". Some 40.9
percent (N = 728) of the gang members indicated that their gang does in fact require its
members to pay regular dues. These are often small amounts paid on a weekly basis. For
example, $5 is common in Peoples gangs, $6 is common in Folks gangs.
Thus, over half (59.1%, N = 1054) of the gang members indicated that in their gang they
are not required to pay dues. This too is an important measure of organizational
sophistication.
63
Deadly Gang Violence Over Drug Income
The survey asked "have you ever fired a gun at someone because they were threatening the
drug business of your gang". Half (51.5%, N = 891) of the gang members indicated that they
have in fact engaged in this deadly gang violence over drug income. Thus, about half (48.5%,
N = 838) indicated they have not engaged in this activity.
Some recent federally funded research on gang homicides has claimed that this type of
gang violence is "instrumental" motivational activity and that it is more likely to be found in
one ethnic or racial gang group: Blacks or African-Americans. We did not believe it when
we first heard it, so we tested the issue directly in this research.
Is there any significant difference by what ethnic or racial group a gang member or gang
represents and the extent to which their gang members actually engage in deadly gang
violence likely to cause great bodily harm or death over drug income? We have the ability
to directly test this, the results of which are provided in Table 8.
TABLE 8
The Distribution of Race of the Gang Member
by Whether The Gang Member Has Ever Fired a Gun
At Someone Over the Gangs Drug Business
Ever Fired a Gun at Someone Because
They Were Threatening The Drug
Business of Your Gang?
Racial Group
NO
YES
% Yes
African-American
361
396
52.3%
Asian or Chinese
48
36
42.8%
American Indian
25
30
54.5%
Mexican
160
165
50.7%
Puerto Rican
27
23
46.0%
White/Caucasian
120
120
50.0%
Other
31
45
59.2%
As seen in Table 8, no ethnic or racial group appears to have a monopoly on this type of
activity that some have used the psychological construct label of "instrumental motivation"
gang activity. As we suspected by good theory, no ethnic or racial group should be expected
to have a monopoly on any type of human psychological motivation.
Deadly Gang Violence Over Turf Defense
The survey asked "have you ever fired a gun at someone because you were defending your
turf?". While only about half of the gang members in the previous question indicated they had
engaged in the use of deadly force over drug profits, here we found that about two-thirds of
the gang members (67.2%, N = 1245) have in fact used deadly gang violence over such "turf"
issues. Thus, about a third of the gang members (32.8%, N = 608) have not engaged in the
use of deadly force likely to cause great bodily harm or death because they were defending
their gang turf.
This is the flip-side of the previous issue, and goes back to a recent federally funded piece
of gang research that concluded that gang homicides could be explained by instrumental and
expressive motivation. Instrumental motivation was "money making" and in the federally
64
funded research it was an activity said to be more common to Black or African-American
gangs. Expressive motivation for deadly gang violence involved "turf defense", and was
claimed in the recent federally funded research to be more common to Hispanic and Latino
gangs.
Again, we are in the position to provide the first real test of this issue, using primary data,
not secondary data. And we are using the preferred unit of analysis: the gang members
themselves, not "courthouse criminology" as it has been called, using secondary data from
government records, the validity and reliability of which has always been subject to
criminological criticism.
So are Hispanics and Latinos more involved in this kind of expressive gang violence?
Table 9 provides the test.
TABLE 9
The Distribution of the Race of the Gang Member
By Whether the Gang Member Has Ever Fired a Gun
At Someone Over Turf Defense Issues
Ever Fired a Gun at Someone Because
They Were Defending Their Gang Turf
Racial Group
NO
YES
% Yes
African-American
283
544
65.7%
Asian or Chinese
31
63
67.0%
American Indian
22
37
62.7%
Mexican
93
236
71.7%
Puerto Rican
12
38
76.0%
White/Caucasian
104
155
59.8%
Other
21
61
74.3%
As seen in Table 9, there are some major differences between the ethnic groups in terms
of this behavior. However, there are some important variations here: the largest difference
is not between Blacks and Mexican Americans, but rather between whites and Puerto Ricans.
Whites have the lowest activity level here (59.8%) and Puerto Ricans have the highest activity
level here (76.0%). Isolating Hispanic/Latinos as a group consisting of Mexican and Puerto
Rican yields a rate of about 72.2 percent. But, overall, Black gang members do seem to have
a lower rate of deadly force than Hispanic/Latinos in this regard. However, we are not
prepared to immediately embrace the conclusion that any ethnic group holds a monopoly on
a type of organizational motivation, and rather we would urge further research along these
lines to break out the many subgroups in both types of ethnic/racial groups.
Half of the Gang Members Have Been A Shooter in A Drive-by Shooting
The survey asked "have you ever been a shooter in a drive-by shooting". Half of the gang
members (50.5%, N = 939) indicated that they have been a shooter in a drive-by shooting.
Half (49.5%, N = 920) had not engaged in this behavior.
Motivation for Shooting In A Drive-By Shooting
As indicated above, about half of the gang members had fired a gun in a drive-by shooting,
so among this subgroup we asked the additional question "what motivated you the most:
___my or my gang's money ___My or my gang's reputation". A third of this subgroup
(33.5%, N = 268) indicated they did it because they were most motivated by money. Two65
thirds (66.5%, N = 532) indicated they did it because they were motivated by gang reputation
concerns.
Half of the Gang Members Are Willing to Die For Their Gang
The survey asked "are you willing to die for your gang friends". Half are, half are not is
the finding here. Some 50.8 percent (N = 889) are willing to die for their gang friends. The
other half (49.2%, N = 862) are not willing to die for their gang friends.
Two-Fifths of the Gang Members State Crime Is Required Activity For Gang
Membership
The survey asked "in your gang, does a person have to participate in illegal activity before
the person can be accepted as a member of the gang?". Some 39.2 percent (N = 688)
indicated that such criminal activity was in fact required before someone could be accepted
into the membership of the gang. But 60.8 percent (N = 1068) indicated that participation in
the crime portion of the gang was not required for membership.
A Retrospective Analysis of Reasons For Joining Gangs
The survey used the question "think back, when you were first thinking of joining a gang,
which of the following do you recall as being the single greatest benefit the gang offered you".
Some 29.9 percent (N = 467) chose "very loyal friends". Some 21 percent (N = 328) chose
"income opportunities". About half and the single largest category (49%, N = 765) chose "a
type of family".
Over Two-Thirds of Gang Members Have Recruited Others Into Gang Life
The survey asked "have you ever recruited anyone into the gang". Some 70.9 percent (N
= 1266) indicated that they have in fact recruited other persons into the gang. Some 29.1
percent (N = 520) indicated that they had not brought new members into the gang.
Where The Gang Recruiting Takes Place
The survey asked "which is the ONE main source where a gang member is most likely to
recruit a new gang member". Some 18.6 percent (N = 283) indicated while meeting a new
friend while being locked up, that is in a correctional environment (i.e., juvenile detention
center, juvenile long term correctional center, adult jail, adult correctional institution, etc).
Some 22.3 percent (N = 339) indicated the best place for recruiting was meeting a new friend
while in the school environment. Some 41.1 percent (N = 625) indicated the best recruiting
place is while meeting new friends in the neighborhood. And 17.9 percent (N = 272)
indicated the best source for new gang recruits was while meeting new friends at parties.
Characteristics of the Gang As A Cult-Like Organization
A series of questions were used in the same style that basically began with the preface "In
my gang..." (i.e., "In my gang, members fear to express their real opinions").22 The response
modes for these statements were true/false. Table 10 provides the results of eight different
such characteristics of the gang as a social group.
Some of the salient findings that emerge from Table 10 are as follows.
About a third (34.8%) of the gang members describe their gang as an environment of fear:
members fear to express their real opinions. Still, about two-thirds indicate this is an open
exchange type of environment --- a more democratic type of structure.
Typically, these are not gang groups that one can simply walk away from by saying "I
quit". As seen in Table 10, only in about two-fifths of the cases does the gang member
66
describe the gang as something easy to quit. Over half (60.6%) say that members cannot
simply leave by resigning at any time --- thus, for these the gang is more like an authoritarian
cult than a democratic institution.
In half the cases (49.8%), each member's personal life is known to other members. Thus,
there is a powerful type of social control that operates in the type of gang where the individual
gang member has no identity apart from that of the gang as a group. So, in half the cases, the
gang has this additional cult-like quality where members know all about the personal life of
the individual as well.
In most cases (63.3%), these are also authoritarian structures, as the things the gang does
are approved of by a higher up leader.
Only a third of the gang groups appear to be willing to take any member. Most of the
gang groups (66.1%) are very selective. So in only a third of the gang groups is the
environment a completely open system available to anyone for membership.
The gangs more often than not (60.7%) also hold meetings are regularly scheduled times.
In half the cases, the gang does keep and maintain a membership list: this is common for
example in ascertaining who has and who has not paid their dues.
In over half the cases, the gang can fine a member for making a mistake.
In short, there are a number of ways in which the gang appears to function in a manner
similar to the organizational styles of a religious cult group.
TABLE 10
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Various Factors
Describing The Nature of the Gang as a Social Group
or Social Organizational Entity
Members fear to express
their real opinions.
FALSE
N
%
TRUE
N
%
1138 65.2
608 34.8
Members may leave the gang
by resigning at any time. 1063 60.6
691
39.4
Each member's personal life
is known to other members. 871 50.2
865
49.8
The things the gang does are
approved by a higher up
leader.
641 36.7
1106 63.3
No applicants for membership
in the gang are
turned down.
1142 66.1
585
The rang has meetings at
regularly scheduled times. 679 39.3
1047 60.7
The gang keeps a list of
names of the members.
875
852 49.3
67
33.9
50.7
A member of the gang can
be fined for a mistake.
732
42.7
984
57.3
Nearly Half of the Gang Members Report They Do Have Asian Members
The survey asked "are there any Asian members in your gang (Asian means any Chinese,
Cambodian, Vietnamese, Laotian, all Asian countries of origin)". Some 47.1 percent (N =
801) indicated that they do have Asian members. Similarly, half (52.9%, N = 901) indicated
that they do not have Asian members in their gang.
Individual and Gang Income: The Percentage that is Legal Money
Two separate questions were used here to examine the nature of individual income sources
among gang members. The first question asked "how much money that you earn is legal.
About ___ percent of it". The results ranged from a low of zero percent to a high of 100
percent. Actually, 21.4 percent indicated zero percent of their income was legal. And 12.7
percent indicated that 100 percent of their income was legal. Overall, the mean or average
amount of individual income among these gang members that was from legal sources was
32.5 percent.
The second question was about the gang's income: "how much money that your group
(gang) earns is legal? About ___ percent of it". Again the range was between zero percent
to 100 percent. A fourth (27.7%) indicated that zero percent of their gang income was legal.
Some 9.5 percent indicated all (100%) of their gang income was legal. The mean or average
amount of gang income that came from legal sources was 29.0 for the gang members in this
sample.
Do High Rollers Gain Status in the Gang?
The survey asked the gang members to respond to the following statement: "persons who
make big money are looked up to in my gang". The results: 19% (N = 322) strongly agree;
22.8% (N = 386) agree; 27.5% (N = 467) no opinion; 18.2% (N = 308) disagree; and 12.6%
(N = 213) strongly disagree. Thus, about 41.7 percent of the gang members agree or strongly
agree that high rollers also get high respect in their gang. Obviously, this is not always the
case.
How Often Gangs Fight With Each Other Over Money
The survey asked "how often does your gang fight with another gang over money". The
results: 16.5% (N = 278) all the time; 13.7% (N = 231) very often; 27.5% (N = 467) often;
18.2% (N = 308) sometimes; and 12.6% (N = 213) never.
Does the Accumulation of Wealth Result in Gained Respect From Rival Gangs?
The survey asked the gang members to provide their responses to the following statement:
"making big money is a way of gaining respect among rival gangs". The results: 15.7% (N
= 276) strongly agree; 20.1% (N = 352) agree; 28.7% (N = 503) no opinion; 29.9% (N = 367)
disagree; and 14.5% (N = 255) strongly disagree.
GANG MEMBER BEHAVIOR WHILE INCARCERATED
Two forms of the survey instrument were actually used in the research. The short form of
the survey was used for populations at large, that is not in any form of secure confinement
(schools, programs, etc). The long form was used for those in any form of confinement, i.e.,
they were incarcerated at the time (i.e., juvenile detention centers, juvenile training schools,
jails).
68
The longer form contained some additional questions about their behavior while being
incarcerated. Thus, special physical precautions were taken to make sure that these questions
about gang member behavior behind bars were only measured in those correctional contexts.
Duration of Their Present Incarceration Experience
The survey asked "how long have you been locked up this time only. ___years and
___months". The variable was converted to number of months. The results ranged from a
low of zero months to a high of 60 months. The mean or average period of incarceration at
the time of data collection was 8.9 months for this sample of gang members.
Removal of Privileges
The survey asked "have you had any privileges removed or taken away while in this
facility". Two-thirds of the gang members (67.9%, N = 937) indicated that they have had
privileges removed or taken away while in custody. Only a third (32.1%, N = 443) had not
had privileges taken away or removed from them during this current correctional experience.
Usually, when they have privileges taken away it means they have been a disciplinary problem
or a security threat.
Half Have Been in Fights While in Custody
The survey asked "have you been in a physical fight with anyone in this facility". Some
55.9 percent (N = 796) of the gang members indicated they have been in fights while in
custody. Thus, only 44.1 percent (N = 628) of the gang members have not been in a physical
fight during their present incarceration experience.
Half Have Threatened Others With Violence While in Custody
The survey asked "have you threatened anyone with violence in this facility". Some 53.5
percent (N = 759) of the gang members reported that they have in fact threatened someone
with violence while in custody. Thus, 45.6 percent (N = 661) had not threatened someone
with violence while in their present correctional facility.
Nearly Half Have Fought With Rival Gang Members While in Custody
The survey asked "have you fought with any rival gang members in this facility". Some
46.5 percent (N = 635) reported that they have in fact fought with rival gang members while
in custody. About half (53.5%, N = 730) have not fought with rival gang members while in
custody.
A fourth Have Tried To Recruit New Members to their Gang While in Custody
The survey asked "have you tried to recruit anyone to your gang in this facility". Some
27.8 percent (N = 374) of the gang members reported that they have in fact tried to recruit
new members to their gang while in custody. Thus, most (72.2%, N = 969) have not tried to
recruit new members to their gang while in custody.
A Fourth Have Carried an Improvised Weapon While in Custody
The survey asked "have you carried a homemade weapon (knife, etc) in this facility".
Some 28.4 percent (N = 397) of the gang members indicated that they have in fact carried an
improvised weapon while in custody. Most (71.6%, N = 1000) indicated they have not carried
an improvised weapon while in custody. Still, we will see in the next chapter how some very
serious differences emerge in comparing gang members and non-gang members with regard
to their threatening behavior behind bars.
69
Over A Fourth Have Threatened Correctional Staff While in Custody
The survey asked "have you threatened any facility staff member or officer in this facility".
Some 29.7 percent (N = 420) indicated they have in fact threatened correctional staff or
correctional officers while in custody. Some 70.3 percent (N = 996) have not threatened
correctional staff while in custody.
Most Have Had Disciplinary Reports While in Custody
The survey asked "how many disciplinary reports have you had while in this facility? __0
__1 __2 __3 __4 __5 or more". About a fourth (28.3%, N = 366) indicated no disciplinary
infractions while in custody. Some 11.7 percent (N = 152) had one disciplinary report. Some
9 percent (N = 117) had two. Some 9.3 percent (N = 120) had three. Some 8.3 percent (N
= 107) had four. And a full third of these gang members (33.4%, N = 433) had five or more
disciplinary reports while in custody.
Two-Fifths Have Been Violent Aggressors While in Custody
The survey asked "did you start a fight with anyone or attack anyone while in this facility".
Some 43.9 percent (N = 618) indicated that they have been aggressors by starting a fight or
attacking someone while in custody. Some 56.1 percent (N = 790) did not start a fight or
attack anyone while in custody.
A Fourth Have Tried to Smuggle Drugs Into the Institution
The survey asked "have you tried to smuggle in any illegal drugs while in this facility".
Some 26.6 percent (N = 376) indicated that they have in fact tried to smuggle in illegal drugs
while in custody. Some 73.4 percent (N = 1040) have not tried to smuggle in illegal drugs
into the correctional institutions they were confined in.
A Fourth of the Gang Members Report that Gangs Use Religious or Cultural Fronts for
their Operations While in Custody
The survey asked "do any gangs use religious or cultural fronts for their operations in this
facility". Some 26.1 percent of the gang members (N = 310) stated that gangs do in fact use
religious or cultural fronts for their operations while in custody. Some 73.9 percent indicated
that gangs do not use such existing facility services for their gang operations.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IN THIS CHAPTER
The gang members included the broad spectrum of gangs found in large urban centers like
Chicago and Los Angeles, but also included most of the well-known gangs known to exist in
America today. We shall now summarize these findings in topical sections for a better profile
of the modern American gang member.
Background: Most are males (91.3%) 14 to 18 years of age (88.8%).
Family: Nearly all (91.6%) worry about the safety of their family members. Nearly
all (93.5%) of the gang members would like to get a legal job, get married, and have children.
Nearly all (91.2%) felt their family worried about them being killed. A third (32.9%) said
their father never punished them for misbehavior. The gang members seem to have a more
positive attachment to mother than father. A fourth (27.9%) did not get help with homework
70
at home. A fifth (19.1%) agreed that if parents cannot keep kids out gangs the kids should
be taken away from the parents. Two-fifths (44.1%) felt that some parents benefit financially
from having a child who is a gang member. Two-thirds (69.9%) have had family or friends
killed because of gang violence. Most (83.4%) would not want their own children to join a
gang. Over half (60.4%) have another family member who is a substance abuser. Over twothirds (72.4%) did have a good relationship with an adult who tried to keep them out of gang
life. Most (79.2%) would discourage their own children from joining a gang. Four-fifths
(80.5%) want to eventually get married. Over two-thirds (69.8%) of these gang members
have family members who are also in a gang; the same proportion (68.3%) indicated that in
their gang their are members whose parents are also active gang members. Most (70.8) said
their parents disapproved of their gang involvement; about the same proportion (73.2%) said
they would quit gang life if they had the chance to get married, get a good steady job, and live
somewhere else.
School: Two-fifths (41.6%) of the gang members had been bullied in school, and even
more (66.5%) were bullies themselves. Mostly all (95.1%) had not yet completed high school.
Half had been demoted, even more (88.7%) had been suspended from school, and two-thirds
had been expelled from school.
Religion: A third of the gang members had some religious training (37.1%). Threefourths (75.9%) liked their experiences with church. Half (54.2%) indicated they rarely if
ever attend church though. Still, most (89.3%) said they do believe in God. A third (32.3%)
expect to go to hell, two-thirds (67.7%) expect to go to Heaven.
Mass Media: Less than half (44.2%) felt that television news coverage of gangs
makes others want to join gangs. But nearly two-thirds (65.5%) did feel that gang members
like seeing themselves on television, and in the newspapers (63.9%). Half (51.1%) felt that
gang members would like to be a part of a study where an important professor might be
willing to hang out with them in the hood. Some 42 percent felt if less attention was given
to gangs in the mass media that fewer people would join gangs. A third (35.5%) felt that if
the confidentiality of the juvenile justice system were eliminated, this might prevent some
juveniles from committing a crime. Asked about the effects of intense news coverage of their
gang: only 28.9 percent viewed it as an embarrassment, 72.9 percent felt more members
would get involved in the gang, and 79.4 percent felt more new members would join the gang.
Their Beliefs About Prevention: Only half agreed that programs can effectively
prevent kids from getting involved in gangs or prevent kids from joining gangs. More
disagree than agree with the idea that gang problems can be prevented by school education,
or drug prevention/education, or strict law enforcement. They were most likely to believe job
training and employment opportunities are the best solution to the gang problem. Between
a fourth to a third of the gang members believe some of the most common approaches to gang
prevention/intervention are a waste of time for kids at risk of joining a gang: educational
programs (33.6%), counseling programs (36.9%), and job training programs (25.6%). About
half question whether social workers can have any effect: in reaching out to persons who
might want to quit a gang (43%), in helping kids stay out of a gang (49.1%), or in combination
with other services whether this could have prevented them from joining a gang (52.8%).
Given the choice of program service components, though, most would prefer employment
programs. Three-fourths (74.7%) believe that most people in gangs want out sooner or later.
Three-fifths (60.1%) do not believe a boot camp could influence someone to drop out of a
71
gang.
Their Own Experiences With Programs and Intervention Services: These gang
members have not been neglected in terms of being recipients of a number of social services
and prevention or intervention services. Half have been in group therapy (52.6%), or in courtmandated therapy (53.7%), or in some counseling program (59.7%). Two-fifths of this gang
population have been in a substance abuse counseling program (42.3%), a job skills program
(44.1%), a job training program (40.2%), the YMCA recreation program (43.7%), and
completed the D.A.R.E. anti-drug program (45.4%). A third (33.8%) had the benefit of a
professional one-on-one tutor. A fourth (28.9%) had parents active in the PTA. Only 19.3
percent had been in the Big Brother/Big Sister program. And only 15.9 percent had ever used
a crisis hotline for help. Thus, few of these gang members actually slipped through the cracks
of society in terms of a complete lack of any social services being available to them.
Gang Involvement Through the Human Development Lifespan: By age 11 most
(79.1%) had already first heard something about gangs. Most (83.6%) had first met a gang
member before they were 13. Half (53.9%) had first fired a pistol or revolver before the age
of 13. Half (48.9%) had seen someone killed or seriously injured by gang violence before the
age of 13. Half (50.5%) had first got a permanent tattoo before the age of 14. Half (49.9%)
had first been arrested before the age of 13. Half (52.6%) thought they would be married
before the age of 24. Half (48.1%) had first joined a gang before they were 13. A fourth
(25.1%) of these gang members did not believe they would live to see their 28th birthday.
Personality: Over a third (37.3%) agreed that success is more dependent on luck than
on real ability. Most (80.7%) worry about the future facing today's children. Some 62.1
percent felt that people can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong.
Their Personal Experiences in the Gang: Almost all (84.7%) have five or more close
gang friends. Most (71.9%) were still active gang members, and many of the rest were now
gang associates. Nearly half (46.7%) have tried to quit the gang. Two-thirds (65.3%) have
held rank or leadership in their gang. Two-fifths (44.3%) have been "violated" by their gang.
Over half (60.7%) have committed a crime for financial gain with their gang. Half (51.5%)
have fired a gun at someone over their gang's drug business, but this variable did not vary
much by race. Two-thirds (67.2%) had fired a gun at someone defending their gang turf. Half
(50.5%) have been a shooter in a gang drive-by shooting, motivated more often than not by
concerns for gang reputation. Half claim to be willing to die for their gang. The most
common reason they gave for joining the gang was it offered a "family" for them. Over twothirds (70.9%) have recruited others into the gang, the most common recruitment source being
the neighborhood context.
Their Descriptions of Their Gang Group/Organization: While almost all major
American gangs were represented in the large national sample, about a fourth were Crips and
Bloods; a third were Folks. Over half (58.9%) indicate their gang has a special
language code. Two-thirds (66.1%) indicate their gang has written rules. Most (84.8%)
indicate their gang has older leaders who have been in the gang a long time. Most of the
gangs (74.8%) exist in multiple geographical areas. Half indicated their gang did arise
locally, and half indicated their gang did not arise locally on its own without contact from a
gang from outside the same area. Only a fourth (25.2%) indicated their gang copied the
72
symbols and name of an out of town gang. Half have had contact with the same gang in
another city. Three-fourths (73.9%) indicate their gang provides money to needy members
in or out of custody. Over a third (35.6%) said their gang has a private attorney used for
defending its members in criminal matters. Some 43.7 percent said their gang keeps an
account that pays for only legal defense. Three-fourths (76.2%) indicated their gang holds
regular meetings. Some 70.3 percent of the gang members indicated their gang had been
around for ten years or more. Some 60.9 percent indicated their gang was an official branch
of a larger national gang, while 40.2 percent described their gang as "homegrown" (emerged
on its own in their city). Over half (59.8%) indicated their gang maintains a treasury. Twofifths (40.9%) indicated their gang collects regular dues from its members; the same
proportion (39.2%) indicated that criminal activity is a required part of gang membership. A
number of characteristics these gang members use to describe their gang also tend to describe
authoritarian cults: a third (34.8%) fear to express their opinions in the gang, most (60.6%)
cannot simply leave the gang by resigning at anytime, half (49.8%) indicate their personal life
is known to other members, nearly two-thirds (63.3%) indicate the things the gang does are
approved by a higher up leader, two-thirds do not simply accept everyone who wants to join,
half say their gang does keep a list of the names of its members (50.7%), and in about half the
cases (57.3%) the gang member can be fined for making a mistake. Some 47.1 percent
indicated that they did have Asian members in their gang. About two-fifths (41.7%) report
that persons who make big money are looked up to in their gang. Only 12.6 percent indicated
their gang never fights with another gang over money. About a third agreed that making big
money is a way of gaining respect among rival gangs.
Gang Behavior While Incarcerated. Some of the gang members had been in custody
for as long as five years. Two-thirds had privileges taken away while in custody. Half have
been in fights while in custody. Half have threatened others with violence while in custody.
Nearly half (46.5%) have fought with rival gang members while in custody. A fourth (27.8%)
have tried to recruit new members to their gang while in custody. A fourth (28.4%) have
carried a homemade weapon while in custody. Over a fourth (29.7%) have threatened a
correctional officer or employee while incarcerated. Most have had one or more disciplinary
reports, a third of the gang members having 5 or more while in custody. Two-fifths (43.9%)
have started a fight with someone or attacked
someone while in custody. A fourth have tried to smuggle drugs into the correctional facility.
A fourth indicated that some gangs use religious or cultural fronts for their meetings while in
custody.
Major Life Events For Gang Members: Using a human development lifespan
approach, a series of questions addressed at what age these major life events occurred for the
gang members. A clear pattern emerged here having many implications for gang prevention
and gang intervention programming. The mean or average ages are used here. At age 8.9
they first heard anything about gangs. Age 9.2 were first bullied in school, and first met
someone in a gang. Age 10.4 first made the transition to bullying someone else in school.
Age 11.3 first fired a pistol or revolver, and saw first killing or injury due to gang violence.
Age 12.0 first joined the gang and first arrested for any crime. Age 12.3 first got their own
real gun. Age 13.0 first got a permanent tattoo. Age 16.5 their current average age in this
study. At the time some of them were interviewed, those in correctional institutions had
already served an average of 8.9 months of their sentence. For those who think they will
eventually get legally married to someone, it will occur at an average age of 24.1 years of age.
73
They expect to die at an average age of 59.5 years of age.
CHAPTER 4
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GANG MEMBERS AND NON-GANG
MEMBERS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines those differences between gang members and non-gang members
by using our simplest method of defining gang membership: our basic self-report question
(ITEM76A). It asks the respondent "Have you ever joined a gang? ___Yes ___No". The
format in this chapter will be to first describe the strong differences, then the moderate to
weak findings, and then those factors for which no difference exists in comparing gang
members and non-gang members.
The results that were significant are all presented in Table 11 which appears at the end of
this chapter.
Strong Difference: Having A Permanent Tattoo
We had three questions about tattoos, one was the basic health risk behavior question (i.e.,
"do you have a permanent tattoo"), which was followed up by the age the respondent first got
a permanent tattoo. A third question was a validity item, that asked if any of the tattoos were
gang tattoos. Here we found a strong difference in the basic health risk question: whether or
not the person has a tattoo varies significantly when comparing gang members and non-gang
members.
The trend is very consistent: gang members show the higher health or behavior risk. Only
30.4 percent of the non-gang members had permanent tattoos, compared to 59.8 percent of
the gang members who had such permanent tattoos. Thus, gang members are twice as likely
to report having a permanent tattoo.
Strong Difference: Friends or Family Being Killed in Gang Violence
The survey asked "have any of your friends or family been killed because of gang
trouble?". A very strong difference emerged here comparing gang members and non-gang
members. In fact, the findings here tell us something that needs to be shared with non-gang
involved children in gang prevention at the primary level: when you join a gang, you hurt not
just yourself, you may bring harm to your friends and family as well.
What we found is that a third (33.7%) of those who were non-gang members had friends
or family killed in gang violence. But over two-thirds (69.8%) of the gang members had
friends or
family killed in gang violence. That is a very significant increase in the probability of
violence! So it seems very clear to the health care community: what we need to reduce the
violence problem is first reduce the gang problem which serves as the social mechanism for
violence.
Strong Difference: Suspended and Expelled From School
These are actually two separate questions and two separate variables, obviously they are
related to each other. Both are measures of school failure, and in both variables the trend is
the same: gang members experience higher levels of school failure when compared to non74
gang members.
The variable on being suspended comes from the question "Have you ever been suspended
from school?". Here 76.9 percent of the non-gang members report this, but 88.7 percent of
the gang members report this school failure. So there is a significant higher risk of school
failure among the gang member population. This is understandable if a youth joins a gang to
find a social replacement value for a sense of family: because the gang will come to
preoccupy the time and energy of the youth, and learning performance in the school
environment will become secondary to the immediate gratifications provided by the gang
itself.
The variable on being expelled comes from the question "have you ever been expelled
from school?". Here under half (45.8%) of the non-gang members report having ever been
expelled from school. However, two-thirds (65.3%) of the gang members report being
expelled from school. This is a strong significant difference in terms of school failure
experiences.
Strong Difference: Beliefs About the Value of "Boot Camps" As A GangDeprogramming Tool
The variable measured here is the strength of the belief that "boot camps" could influence
some people to get out of a gang. The survey asked "do you think a boot camp could
influence some people to get out of a gang". Gang deprogramming is not a known effective
technique in any area of applied psychology, applied social work, or any intervention school
of thought at the present. Many believe that some experiences can achieve such a gang
deprogramming effect. And certainly there are some who certainly believe the intervention
must be a harsh punitive type of experience, such as that held out as meaning "shock
incarceration" today: the so-called "boot camps". What most unread persons fail to realize
is "boot camps" are not new. The American juvenile correctional system began that way, as
a military model, facilities like the St. Charles Training School for Boys were based on
military discipline and a strict regimen of highly ordered cadence, marching, and silence. It
didn't work then in terms of preventing recidivism, like bullying behavior these facilities once
studied by Shaw and McKay (see Knox, 1995) were shown to be effective at systematically
producing adult offenders.
Some 52.7 percent of the non-gang members believed that "boot camps" might influence
some persons to get out of a gang. We found only 39.9 percent of the gang members thought
boot camps could be effectively used as a gang deprogramming strategy.
Gang Members More likely To Have Been In Juvenile Correctional Institutions
As seen in Table 11, some 63.4 percent of the non-gang members report having been
incarcerated in juvenile correctional
institutions, compared to 81.4 percent of the gang members. Gang members seem more likely
to face the likelihood of incarceration in juvenile corrections is the picture that emerges here.
Strong Difference: More Gang Members Believe They Are Really Going to Hell
A later section in this chapter will describe, basically list, those factors that are not
significantly different from a comparison of gang members and non-gang members. But we
can tell you right now one of these was whether these youths believed in God. That is, no
significant difference existed in comparing gang members and non-gang members with regard
to whether they actually believed in God. Recall that this is mostly an offender population we
are studying. Therefore, gang member or non-gang member alike were about equally likely
to believe in God. Where they differed was their personal evaluation of where they would go
in the afterlife.
The survey asked "assume there is a God. So if you died right now, where would you go?
75
___To Hell ___To Heaven".
Some 20.9 percent of the non-gang members thought they would go to hell. A
significantly larger proportion (32.2%) of the gang members believe they are going to hell.
Strong Difference: Gang Members Are More Likely to Want Their Own Children To
Be in A Gang
The survey asked "do you want your children to be in a gang?" Some 8.3 percent of the
non-gang members said they would actually want their own children to be in a gang. But 16.5
percent of the gang members indicated they would want their children to be in a gang. We
interpret this significant difference in terms of the basic validity issue of whether the "gang
subsample" is really what it purports to be, and the "non-gang subsample" is basically for the
most part what it purports to be. In this regard, obviously, gang members would be more
likely to want their own children to be in the gang, as this would be a way of saving face in
the context where the non-gang members can be expected to place greater stigma on gang
involvement.
In fact, we have a validity item that addressed the very same issue, the question was simply
worded somewhat differently and located far away in the item order of the physical layout of
the survey instrument. This second question produced an equivalent pattern of differences
in the same direction of behavior. The second question was as follows: "if you have or plan
to have children, would you encourage them or discourage them from joining a gang?" Some
11.8 percent of the non-gang members indicated they would encourage such behavior, but this
nearly doubles for gang members (20.7%).
Strong Difference: Gang Members Are Less Likely To Believe That the Mass Media
Has A Negative Effect When It Comes To Gangs
Like boot camps gang members did not look at the mass media as a bogeyman to the same
extent that non-gang members believed it has such a negative effect. Perhaps this is because
gang members are more skeptical that anything has any effect on them. Then again, perhaps
they do have better insights into the problem.
The factor measured here is basically the hypothesis of reaction formation in the mass
media. The survey asked "do you feel that if less attention was given to gangs on television,
in newspapers, and in movies that fewer people would join gangs?".
Here is what we found. There is a very significant difference in comparing gang members
and non-gang members in terms of whether they believe it is true that the mass media tends
to reinforce gang membership behavior, and that if less attention were given then fewer
people would join gangs. Gang members are significantly less like to believe this is true
(41.9%). Non-gang members are significantly more likely to believe this is true (52.6%).
Strong Difference: Having Privileges Removed or Taken Away While In Custody
The survey was able to compare gang members and non-gang members in terms of a
number of factors of behavior while in custody. This is, therefore, the first large scale
interstate example of gang research that examines such disciplinary behavior problems that
gang members have been said to now represent for correctional management.
The survey asked "have you had any privileges removed or taken away while in this
facility?". The difference here is very significant, as about half of the non-gang members
(51.8%) have had privileges removed or taken away, compared to two-thirds (67.8%) of the
gang members. What this usually means when someone has had their privileges removed or
taken away is that they have been manifested behavior problems or security threats while
76
inside the correctional institution. In fact, these disruptive behaviors found to be more
associated with gang members are, as can be seen in Table 11, some of the strongest findings
that emerged from our analysis of all variables.
Strong Difference: Having Been in A Physical Fight With Someone While in Custody
The survey asked "have you been in a physical fight with anyone in this facility". Some
28.2 percent of the non-gang members had been in a fight with someone while in custody.
This doubles in magnitude for gang members (55.8%). Obviously, another part of being a
gang member appears to be magnified in the custodial context of group behavior.
Strong Difference: Having Threatened Someone With Violence While In Custody
The survey asked "have you threatened anyone with violence in this facility". Here again
the pattern of higher threats associated with gang membership continues to manifest itself.
While a fourth (25.2%) of the non-gang members had engaged in this behavior, the threat
doubles in the gang member population to 53.4 percent.
Strong Difference: Carrying An Improvised Weapon While In Custody
The survey asked "have you carried a homemade weapon (knife, etc) in this facility".
Only 11.1 percent of the non-gang members indicated that they have carried an improvised
weapon while in custody. This threat more than doubles in intensity when the inmate is a
gang member (28.4%).
Strong Difference: Threatening Correctional Staff or Officers While in Custody
The survey asked "have you threatened any facility staff member or officer in this
facility". Only 12.3 percent of the non-gang members have engaged in this rather serious
behavior of threatening correctional staff or correctional officers while in custody. However,
the nature of this risk to the safety of correctional staff and correctional officers more than
doubles when they face gang members (29.6%).
Strong Difference: Starting a Fight or Attacking Someone While in Custody
The survey asked "did you start a fight with anyone or attack someone while in this
facility". For the non-gang member only 18.7 percent have engaged in this type of assaultive
behavior while in custody. This assaultive behavior threat more than doubles for the confined
person who is a gang member (43.8%).
Strong Difference: Trying to Smuggle in Illegal Drugs into the Correctional Institution
Only 8.6 percent of the non-gang members have attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the
correctional institution. However, for gang members this behavior triples, as 26.5 percent of
the gang members have tried to smuggle in illegal drugs into the facilities they were studied
in.
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Likely To Believe Educational Programs
Are a Waste of Time for Kids At Risk of Joining a Gang
All of the previous differences, discussed up till now, have been very strong significant
relationships. Now we turn to the moderately strong relationships that produce significant
differences in comparing gang members and non-gang members. A moderate difference is
less pronounced, but very discernable in a rule of thumb that might be used in a classification
77
system to deal with the gang problem. The ideal custodial classification system would
examine all such factors, placing greater weight on the strong factors, and less weight on the
moderate factors, and even less weight on the weaker factors. But all these factors add up in
a classification system, as they alert staff what to look for.
The survey asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement: "for
kids at risk of joining a gang, getting involved in educational programs is a waste of time".
Some 23.5 percent of the non-gang members agreed with this statement. About a ten point
difference separates the non-gang members from the gang members though. As 33.6 percent
of the gang members felt such educational programs for kids at risk of joining a gang are a
waste of time. The gang member is, it seems, a bit more cynical and fatalistic.
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Likely To Believe Counseling Programs
Are a Waste of Time for Kids At Risk of Joining a Gang
The survey asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the following statement: "for
kids at risk of joining a gang, getting involved in counseling programs is a waste of time".
Some 26.5 percent of the non-gang members agreed that it would probably be a waste of time
for kids at risk of joining a gang to get involved in a counseling program. However, this
repudiation of the value of gang intervention counseling services rises to 36.8 percent for the
gang members themselves.
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Prone Towards Stereotypy
The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the following statement: People can
be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. Some 51.1 percent of the nongang members accepted this authoritarian orientation towards people. However, for gang
members some 62 percent agreed with the idea.
Moderate Difference: Gang Members Report More Substance Abuse in their Families
The survey asked "do you think anyone in your family uses drugs or drinks too much".
Some 50.9 percent of the non-gang members reported such substance abuse in their family.
However, for gang members this substance abuse problem in the family rises to 60.3 percent.
Moderate Difference: Gang Members More Likely To Report That in Correctional
Environments Gangs Do Use Religious or Cultural Fronts for Gang Operations
The survey asked the confined populations being studied the following question: "Do any
gangs use religious or cultural fronts for their operations in this facility". A non-gang member
may simply not be privy to the operations of gangs. Some 15.7 percent of the non-gang
members did report that gangs do use religious or cultural fronts for their operations while in
custody. However some 26 percent of the gang members reported that gangs do use such
religious and cultural fronts for gang operations behind bars.
Weaker Significant Differences Between Gang Members and Non-Gang Members
A number of other factors can be seen in Table 11 that while significant produce rather
weak overall percentage differences in comparisons between gang members and non-gang
members. The significance is due to the large size of the sample being analyzed. We still
consider these important factors though. In most of these comparisons there is less than 10
percentage points difference in the factor being analyzed.
We will summarize these remaining weaker differences now.
Asked "do you worry about the safety of your family members", 89.2 percent of the nongang members said yes, compared to 91.6 percent of the gang members. So gang members
78
do appear to worry slightly more about the safety of their family members.
Asked "do you think your parents/family/friends worry about you being killed", some 84
percent of the non-gang members said yes, compared to 91.1 percent of the gang members.
Thus, the gang members seem to project more paranoia about being killed.
Asked to agree or disagree with the statement "success is more dependent on luck than on
real ability", some 29.2 percent of the non-gang members agreed, compared to 37.3 percent
of the gang members. Thus, the gang members are more prone to believe in luck and fatalism,
i.e., they are slightly more alienated.
Asked for a true/false response to the question "I worry about the future facing today's
children", some 85.9 percent of the non-gang members said true, compared to 80.6 percent
of the gang members. Apparently gang members worry somewhat less about the future facing
today's children, given the many more salient factors they probably have a right to worry
about.
Asked to agree or disagree with the statement "for kids at risk of joining a gang, getting
involved in job training programs is a waste of time", some 19.6 percent of the non-gang
members agreed, compared to 25.6 percent of the gang members. As in the other trends with
gang members and the value of such secondary prevention gang program initiatives, gang
members are always less likely to agree about the effectiveness of such undertakings.
Asked the true/false question "my father never punished me for misbehavior", some 28
percent of the non-gang members indicated this was true, compared to 32.9 percent of the
gang members. Thus, for the gang members there was a slightly larger trend towards the
father not punishing them for misbehavior.
Asked to agree or disagree with the statement "fear is the only effective means that you can
use to control children", some 25.3 percent of the non-gang members agreed, compared to
30.4 percent of the gang members. Thus, there is a slightly higher tendency for gang members
towards an authoritarian belief system.
Asked if they have ever been in court-mandated psychological counseling, some 45.2
percent of the non-gang members have had the benefit of this type of secondary prevention
assistance, compared to 53.7 percent of the gang members. Thus, the gang members have
received more, not less, in regard to secondary prevention or intervention services.
Asked if their parents were or are active in the PTA, some 32.6 percent of the non-gang
members said yes, compared to 28.8 percent of the gang members. Thus, non-gang members
had slightly more responsible parents.
Asked if they had received their high school degree, or perhaps more likely in correctional
environments whether they had been able to complete their G.E.D. degrees, some 21 percent
of the non-gang members said yes, compared to 12.5 percent of the gang members. Gang
members are more prone towards school failure seems to be the rule of thumb here.
Asked to indicate if they liked or disliked their experiences with churches, some 80.8
percent of the non-gang members said they liked their church experiences, compared to 75.9
percent of the gang members. Thus, gang members are less likely to report a positive
experience with churches.
Asked whether they attend church rarely or often, some 53.6 percent of the non-gang
members said often, compared to 45.7 percent of the gang members. Thus, non-gang
members were slightly more likely to attend church.
Asked whether their parents ever approved of their stealing, some 13.7 percent of the nongang members said yes, compared to 18.3 percent of the gang members. The rule of thumb
seems to be there are more criminogenic problems in the gang member's family than can be
found in the family of the non-gang member.
Asked whether they think social workers can be effective in reaching out to persons who
79
might want to quit the gang, some 65.6 percent of the non-gang members felt that social
workers could be effective in this capacity, compared to 57 percent of the gang members.
Thus, the more skeptical and distrustful gang member is less likely to believe a social worker
can be effective in reaching out to persons who might want to quit the gang. We expect to
later examine this factor for gang members in reference also to whether they have in fact ever
attempted to leave the gang, the hypothesis being that those who have considered defecting
would have a better evaluation of the efficacy of social workers in such a capacity.
Asked if they feel that some parents benefit financially from having a child who is a gang
member, some 37.8 percent of the non-gang members felt this was true, compared to 44.1
percent of the gang members. Gang members are more likely than non-gang members, then,
to report that some parents benefit financially from having a child who is a gang member.
This is the issue of parental collaboration and parental complicity in gang crime today.
Asked if they felt that gang members like seeing themselves on the news, some 70.4
percent of the non-gang members felt the gang enjoyed this attention, compared to 65.4
percent of the gang members. Thus, the gang members were less prone than the non-gang
members to feel that gangs like getting attention in the news media.
Asked if they felt that gang members like seeing themselves in the newspapers, some 70.7
percent said yes, compared to 63.9 percent of the gang members. Again, the trend in the
difference comparing non-gang members and gang members, is that gang members attribute
less impact to the mass media.
Asked if they felt that gang members would like to have an ethnographer hang out with
them in their hood, some 43 percent of the non-gang members said yes, compared to 48.9
percent of the gang members. Perhaps the non-gang members attributed greater critical ability
to gang members. Perhaps the gang members thought they could benefit from or exploit the
professor.
Asked if they feel that if parents cannot keep their children out of gangs then the children
should be taken away from the parents, some 23.9 percent of the non-gang members agreed,
compared to 19.1 percent of the gang members. Obviously, the gang members stood to lose
on this equation, and thus were less likely to agree with the idea.
Finally, asked if they have any fear about what a juvenile court can do to them, some 59.9
percent of the non-gang members did have some fear of what the juvenile court could do to
them, compared to 55.4 percent of the gang members. Thus, the gang members were less
fearful of what sanctions the juvenile court could legally use against them.
NON-SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
A comparison of gang members and non-gang members revealed a number of real
commonalities as well. These are factors for which no significant difference exists in
comparing gang members and non-gang members. All of the following factors were therefore
non-significant differences in comparing gang members and non-gang members.
Whether in the future they would like to get a legal job, get married, and have children.
Whether they had ever been bullied by anyone in school.
Whether they lacked respect for their mother or father.
Whether they have used a wide variety of social services and treatment programs in the past
including: having ever called a crisis hotline for help; whether they have ever been involved
in group therapy; whether they have ever had a one-on-one professional tutor; whether they
80
have ever been in a drug-substance abuse counseling program; whether they have ever been
in a job skills program; whether they have ever been in a job training program; whether they
have been involved in any counseling program; whether they have been involved in a Big
Brother/Big Sister program; whether they have been involved in a YMCA recreational
program; whether they have completed the D.A.R.E. anti-drug abuse program.
Whether they had completed any religious training.
Whether they would be willing to take off their permanent tattoo if a hospital was willing to
offer free services for the removal of the tattoo.
Whether they do or do not believe in God.
Whether they got help with homework from an adult in their household.
Whether they feel that when gangs are seen in T.V. news reports that this makes people want
to join gangs.
Whether they do or do not believe that when a school teacher or principal negotiates with a
gang member this encourages more gang activity.
Whether lifting the secrecy veil over juvenile court, and allowing the mass media in, would
discourage more juveniles from committing a crime.
Whether they believe or not that most people in gangs want out sooner or later.
Whether they believe they will or will not eventually get legally married to someone.23
In the above comparisons of gang members and non-gang members, then, neither was
significantly different in these respects. In fact, a condition of commonality existed where on
these factors gang members were no different than non-gang members.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS IN THIS CHAPTER
Some very useful information has emerged from this chapter in the effort to summarize
how gang members differ from non-gang members. The nature of the comparison made in
this chapter was based on self-report: whether the respondent admitted to having ever joined
a gang or not. This approach is sufficient with the large sample here to distinguish between
a variety of factors that significantly differentiate the gang member from the non-gang
member. These findings have very practical implications for those who work in the field of
corrections, because this self-report definition of gang membership is often very similar in
some regards to what might get used in a correctional environment based on presentence
investigation and official criminal record files: if it quacks like a duck and claims to be a
duck, assume it is a duck.
Strong Differences Between Gang Members and Non-Gang Members
A pattern of very strong differences emerged in comparing gang members and non-gang
members in this study. Here then is the profile of these aggregate findings:
Gang members were more likely to be bullies in school, and therefore suspended and
81
expelled from school, have a permanent tattoo, having friends or family killed in gang
violence, much less likely to believe boot camps will flip a gang member, much more likely
to want their own children to be gang members, much less likely to believe the mass media
exacerbates the gang problem, much more combative and disruptive (physical fights,
threatening violence, carrying an improvised weapon in custody, threatening staff, starting
fights, and trying to smuggle in drugs) in custody than their non-gang member counterparts.
Moderate Differences Between Gang Members and Non-Gang Members
A pattern of moderately strong differences also emerged in comparing gang members and
non-gang members, typically meaning a difference of at least 10 percentage points or more.
Here then is what we find from a profile of these aggregate findings:
Gang members are more skeptical about the effectiveness of gang prevention and
intervention programs, and consistently feel they cannot achieve as much good as non-gang
members believe they can. Gang members have more substance abuse in their families. Gang
members are more likely to report that gangs use religious and cultural fronts for their
meetings in correctional settings.
Weaker Significant Differences Between Gang Members and Non-Gang Members
A pattern of weaker differences also emerged in comparing gang members and non-gang
members, the overall profile of these findings being as follows:
Gang members worry about their family members and their selves, more prone to believe
in luck, less likely to be punished by their father, gang parents being less active in PTA but
apparently benefiting financially from a gang involved child and approving of their stealing,
somewhat more authoritarian in their views, more likely to be in court-mandated
psychological counseling, less positive experiences with church and attend it less frequently,
attribute less negative impact to the mass media regarding gangs, more skeptical of social
work programs aimed at gangs, and less fearful of juvenile court.
TABLE 11
Factors Significantly Differentiated by Self-Reported
Gang Membership
Ever Join a Gang
Do you worry about the
safety of your
family members?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square =
Do you think that
programs could be
effective in preventing
kids from getting
involved in gangs?
NO
NO
123
1022
89.2
4.80, p
362
YES
167
1824
91.6
= .02
921
82
YES 761 1031
% Yes 67.7 52.8
Chi-square = 65.5, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Do you think gang
prevention programs
can be effective in
preventing persons
from joining a gang?
NO 401
974
YES 728
976
% Yes
64.4 50.0
Chi-square = 60.2, p < .001
Do you think your
parents/family/friends
worry about you
being killed?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
181
174
953 1793
84.0 91.1
= 35.9, p < .001
Success is more dependent
on luck than on
real ability.
AGREE
326 720
DISAGREE
789 1208
% Agree
29.2 37.3
Chi-square = 20.5, p < .001
Ever Join a Gang NO
YES
I worry about the future
facing today's children.
FALSE
160 377
TRUE
975 1575
% True
85.9 80.6
Chi-square = 13.5, p < .001
For kids at risk of
joining a gang, getting
involved in educational
programs is a waste
of time.
AGREE
263 653
DISAGREE
853 1289
% Agree
23.5 33.6
Chi-square = 34.1, p < .001
83
TABLE 11: Continued
For kids at risk of
involved in counseling
programs is a waste
of time.
AGREE
297
717
DISAGREE
821 1228
% Agree
26.5 36.8
Chi-square = 34.0, p < .001
For kids at risk of
involved in job
training programs is
a waste of time.
AGREE 222
500
DISAGREE
905
1450
% Agree
19.6
25.6
Chi-square = 14.0, p <.001
Did you ever bully
someone in school?
NO 620
YES 511
% Yes
45.1
Chi-square = 133.6, p
Ever been in a juvenile
correctional inst.?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
654
1296
66.4
<.001
409
362
709
1590
63.4
81.4
= 122.9, p < .001
Ever Join a Gang
NO
YES
My father never
punished me for
misbehavior. FALSE 781
1274
TRUE
305
625
% True
28.0
32.9
Chi-square = 7.50, p = .006
Fear is the only
effective means that
you can use to
control children.
AGREE
277
582
84
DISAGREE 816
1328
% Agree
25.3
30.4
Chi-square = 8..95, p = .003
TABLE 11: Continued
People can be divided
into two distinct
classes: the weak
and the strong.
AGREE
557
1176
DISAGREE 531
718
% Agree
51.1
62.0
Chi-square = 33.7, p < .001
Have you ever been in
court-mandated
psychological counseling
or therapy?
NO
577
849
YES
476
985
% Yes 45.2
53.7
Chi-square = 19.3, p < .001
Were or are your parents
active in the PTA?
NO
737
1339
YES 358
544
% Yes 32.6
28.8
Chi-square = 4.74, p = .02
Do you think a "book camp"
could influence some
people to get out of
a gang?
NO
519
1149
YES 580
764
% Yes 52.7
39.9
Chi-square = 46.5, p < .001
Have you received a
high school degree or
G.E.D. degree?
NO
887
1681
YES
237
242
% Yes
21.0
12.5
Chi-square = 38.6, p <.001
How would you rate your
85
experiences with churches?
LIKED IT
867
1426
DISLIKED IT
206
452
% Liked It
80.8
75.9
Chi-square = 9.34, p = .002
TABLE 11: Continued
Which best describes you:
I RARELY ATTEND CHURCH
504
1017
I OFTEN ATTEND CHURCH
583
859
% I often attend church
53.6
45.7
Chi-square = 16.9, p < .001
Do you have a permanent
tattoo?
NO
778
788
YES
341
1173
% Yes 30.4
59.8
Chi-square = 245.4, p < .001
Assume there is a God.
So if you died right now,
where would you go?
TO HELL
214
564
TO HEAVEN
806
1184
% To Hell
20.9
32.2
Chi-square = 40.5, p < .001
Did your parents ever
approve of your stealing?
NO
940
1571
YES
150
353
% Yes
13.7
18.3
Chi-square = 10.5, p = .001
Have you ever been
demoted in school?
NO
668
1011
YES
441
916
% Yes 39.7
47.5
Chi-square = 17.1, p < .001
Do you think social
workers can be effective
in reaching out to
persons who might want
to quit the gang?
NO
383
YES
731
829
1099
86
% Yes 65.6
57.0
Chi-square = 21.8, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Do you feel that some
parents benefit
financially from
having a child who
is a gang member?
NO
689
1064
YES
419
841
% Yes 37.8
44.1
Chi-square = 11.5, p = .001
Do you feel that gang
members like seeing
themselves on the news?
NO
328
664
YES
782
1259
% Yes
70.4
65.4
Chi-square = 7.93, p = .005
members like seeing
themselves in the
newspapers?
NO
321
687
YES
775
1217
% Yes 70.7
63.9
Chi-square = 14.3, p < .001
members like being
part of a study where
an important professor
might be willing to
hang out with them
in the hood?
NO
624
979
YES
471
938
% Yes
43.0
48.9
Chi-square = 9.80, p = .002
87
TABLE 11: Continued
YES
Ever Join a Gang
NO
Do you feel that if less
attention was given to
gangs on television, in
newspapers, and in movies
that fewer people would
join gangs?
NO
529
1125
YES
589
813
% Yes
52.6
41.9
Chi-square = 32.8, p < .001
Do you feel that if parents
cannot keep their children
out of gangs, then the
children should be taken
away from the parents?
NO
856
1568
YES
269
371
% Yes
23.9
19.1
Chi-square = 9.83, p = .002
Have any of your friends
or family been killed
because of gang trouble?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
749
584
381
1353
33.7
69.8
= 379.1, p < .001
Do you want your children
to be in a gang?
NO
1038
1607
YES
94
319
% Yes
8.3
16.5
Chi-square = 41.6, p < .001
Do you think anyone in
your family uses drugs
or drinks too much?
NO
555
771
88
YES
577
1174
% Yes
50.9
60.3
Chi-square = 25.7, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Ever Join a Gang
NO
YES
Do you have any fear
about what a juvenile
court can do to you?
NO
447
859
YES
668
1068
% Yes 59.9
55.4
Chi-square = 5.80, p = .01
Have you ever been
suspended from school?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square =
262
220
877
1727
76.9
88.7
74.6, p < .001
Have you ever been
expelled from school?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square =
617
522
45.8
113.0, p
675
1275
65.3
<.001
If you have or plan to
have children, would
you encourage them or
discourage them from
joining a gang?
ENCOURAGE
DISCOURAGE
% Encourage
Chi-square =
131
972
11.8
38.0, p
388
1480
20.7
< .001
REMAINING COMPARISONS ARE
AMONG THE INCARCERATED
GROUPS ONLY:
Have you had any privileges
removed or taken away
while in this facility?
89
NO
281
YES
303
% Yes 51.8
443
937
67.8
< .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Ever Join a Gang
NO
YES
Have you been in a physical
fight with anyone in
this facility?
NO
447
628
YES
176
796
% Yes
28.2
55.8
Chi-square = 132.8, p < .001
Have you threatened anyone
with violence in this
facility?
NO
463
661
YES
156
759
% Yes
25.2
53.4
Chi-square = 139.0, p < .001
Have you carried a
homemade weapon (knife,
etc) in this facility?
NO
532
1000
YES
67
397
% Yes
11.1
28.4
Chi-square = 69.7, p < .001
Have you threatened any
facility staff member or
officer in this facility?
NO
540
996
YES
76
420
% Yes 12.3
29.6
Chi-square = 69.8, p < .001
Did you start a fight with
anyone or attack someone
NO
504
790
YES
116
618
% Yes
18.7 43.8
Chi-square = 118.2, p < .001
90
Have you tried to smuggle
in any illegal drugs while
in this facility?
NO
562
1040
YES
53
376
% Yes
8.6
26.5
Chi-square = 82.7, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Do any gangs use religious
or cultural fronts for their
operations in this facility?
NO
337
879
YES
63
310
% Yes
15.7
26.0
Chi-square = 17.7, p < .001
91
Chapter 5
A Risk Analysis of Gang Member Behavior Patterns
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter we will introduce the reader to the benefits of having operational variability
in the study of gang behavior. This research project included sixteen researchers each testing
their own unique hypotheses in a mutually agreed gang research strategy. A benefit of such
interdisciplinary approaches to the measurement of gang involvement in Project GANGPINT
was the diversity of actual measurements used in the national research. Rather than having
a lot of bitter differences across disciplines, the present project included a more democratic
process of nomination to the item pool, guaranteeing certain measures of gang involvement
in the finalized survey instrument. As a result, the present study examined many aspects of
actual gang involvement.
The present study therefore has many different measurements of gang involvement other
than a single self-report variable. The fact is, the reality is artificially portrayed in the nominal
sense of having a gang problem or not having a gang problem, when the definition of gang
problem can consist of more than one single measurement. Because there are different levels
of gang risk, the reader will therefore understand that in the best of all research worlds, the
data would reflect this natural variability in what is normally viewed as a nominal issue: gang
member or non-gang member, gang-related or not gang-related, gang involvement or no gang
involvement, etc.
Serious gang research should strive for an analysis that rises above the nominal level of
sophistication. In otherwords, it may not be best to simply classify any population as simply
"gang problem" or "not a gang problem", but rather there are benefits to examining the
possibility that there are --- quite logically --- varying levels of the gang problem. This is
particularly true when generalizing research findings to the individual gang member. The
individual gang members will show much variation in the scope and extent of their gang
involvement. This chapter takes advantage of this natural existing variability in gang
experiences, specifically individual gang behavior, to demonstrate the utility of a risk/threat
analysis model applied to gang problems.
Here the researchers make the case for the advantages of a flexible, and variable approach
to gang analysis. One that includes a spectrum of possibilities for "gang involvement". One
that is not based on secondary data, but based on extensive primary data that is then collapsed
where needed for purposes of classification. In otherwords, the categories are not artifacts
defined outside of the authority of the researcher (i.e., police records, secondary data not
planned initially to be used for gang research, etc). These researchers intentionally included
a host of independent variables in their individual research initiatives included in the overall
92
national gang research consortium project. Collectively, these measurements are used here
for examining the issue of variability in the individual "gang problem" or "gang threat" or
"gang risk".
The chapter will discuss the analytical issues, the potential practical value of this analytical
approach, develop a risk model, and test the risk model on a representative risk population.
GANG THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE
Today the gang problem is so pervasive that virtually anyone with credentials and an
attitude about the gang problem qualifies as a perspective that some mistake for a theory. A
useful theory is one that helps to build an accumulative body of useful knowledge. The
knowledgeable gang researcher will therefore recognize that it is possible for gang research
to mislead other scholars when the research is fatally flawed by what is called overly
conservative operationalizational measures that basically help "deny" the gang problem.
When a gang research sets the measurement criteria to be overly restrictive of what "gangrelated" actually amounts to in empirical research, it is possible to develop operationalizations
that can "unfound" most gang crime in America. This happens for example, when a killing
in a gang's drug business, or inter-gang rivalry over drug disputes, results in a homicide; and
the police lacking a complainant to verify it is gang-related just because the victim was a gang
member may classify the homicide as a "drug-related homicide". Variability and versatility
in research measurements therefore adds much rigor to gang research. As, the lack of
variability and overly restrictive definitions can clearly be a source of over-identification and
therefore a logical fallacy fatally flawing the best of sampling and statistical methods.
To avoid these logical pitfalls, the present research planned well in advance to develop a
number of operational measurements of gang-risk behavior. The research strategy during item
development and instrumentation was to develop an extremely sensitive set of measurements
that captured the varied and uniquely different aspects of actual gang behavior. Gang
behavior cannot be properly inferred with validity from simply examining police files or
official reports of such behavior: for police files were not designed to assist researchers in
data collection. Rather, the best data is data directly from gang members, thus anyone relying
on official records without seeking to obtain corroborative data from the gang members and
non-gang members involved makes a major mistake in basic criminological research.
It is also an issue of the unit of analysis studied in gang research. Studying police agencies
in the USA means using the agency itself, a government agency, as the unit of analysis. One
can get viewpoints from agency staff about gang member behavior, and sometimes get a good
estimate of the prevalence of the gang member behavior problem. However, a better way to
study gang member behavior is basically to ask the gang members themselves. Using primary
data from the actual gang member provides the best unit of analysis for research that has the
goal of being able to speak to the issue of gang member behavior.
We alert other scholars to the possibility of federal gang research misinformation when the
research seeks to generalize to gang member behavior by relying on official information and
then further restricting the variable of interest to a point where what the researcher measures
about the most important ingredient of gang research "defining the gang impact" is such a
rigid and insensitive operational definition of the variable defining "gang", we end up with
the conclusion that there is no gang problem in any given context or issue. We must be most
alert to this problem where it is most logically likely to occur in theory, research and practice:
when the research uses aggregate secondary data to explain underground behavior that occurs
93
at the individual human level.
In practice, there is enormous potential practical value in a useable gang risk classification
system. In correctional environments, this could help reduce violence, prevent confrontations,
and possibly save lives of inmates and staff. In schools and contexts such as mental health
facilities that come to be faced with the reality of the gang conflict problem spilling over from
streets into school rooms and hospital wards, a classification system that works to effectively
assign resources to a problem to the empirical and justifiable level of perceived threat can
more efficiently prevent existing problems from escalating. In theory, all we need is baseline
expectancy analysis not remarkably more sophisticated than that of the early prediction
research of the Chicago school that has come to be common in the insurance industry today.
It is recognized that one cannot predict 100 percent of everything that is human, but that a
great deal of what is human risk behavior can be understood and planned for accordingly.
The Basic Screening Questions Used in the Gang Risk Scale
Figure 4 provides and explains the use of the basic screening questions used for the
computation of the raw gang risk scale score. The raw gang risk scale score is a value
between an absolute low of zero to an absolute high of 15. The higher the scale score,
obviously, the higher the risk of the gang involvement measurement.
Figure 4 provides the means by which fifteen different questions that were used in the
Project GANGPINT survey instrument are scored to develop an additive scale index
measuring the variability in gang involvement. At this stage of the risk analysis development
component of the research, it is sufficient to demonstrate its utility without factor analysis and
without other multivariate weighting techniques. The issue is simply whether the less
statistically complex version of the model achieves the goal of applied use.
As seen in Figure 4, all gang members would probably have an additive scale score of at
least a value of 1 or greater. But the value could be as high as 15. This differentiation in
terms of variability deserves some further explication.
Someone who was a total non-gang member in the juvenile to adult population would
score a zero on the gang risk scale. However, depending on the individual, some gang
members are greater risks than others. It is this assumption of the natural variability of the
gang involvement continuum that provides the theoretical basis for the gang risk scale. We
assume there are differences even in the offender population, this is not a new discovery in
corrections, criminal justice, or criminology --- it just has not caught on in gang research.
The implication of the use of the gang risk scale, the operationalization of which is
described in Figure 4, is then quite pragmatic: just as some offenders are more dangerous than
others, some gang members are more "hard core" than others. We would prefer not to use the
term "hard core", because logically that implies there is a "soft core" gang member as well.
But the basic mathematical direction or salience is correct: the higher the gang risk scale
score, the greater the level and intensity of an individual's gang involvement. The issue is
whether a classification system, or rating system, whatever we want to call it, would be useful
in preventing problems. That is the entire subject of this chapter.
The Raw Scores of the Gang Risk Index
Table 12 provides the distribution of the gang risk index scores for the entire sample of
gang members and non-gang members alike. As seen in Table 12, over a fourth of the total
sample had scores of 0 through 1 (30.4%), which is regarded as a level zero gang risk: the
least risk group in our sample. The level one group is classified as anyone with scores in the
range of 2 through 5 which accounts for about a fifth of the sample (18.8%). The level two
group consists of those with scores in the range of 6 through 9 and has roughly a fourth of the
94
sample. Finally, the highest threat category is the level three group which consists of scores
between 10 and 15, and represents about a fourth of the sample.
The raw scores in Table
12 therefore represent an additive index score of various measures of gang involvement.
There is, it appears, remarkable variation in the extent of individual level gang involvement
in this manner of analyzing the problem. However, this is only a first step towards
ascertaining the value of a gang risk classification system.
It remains to be seen if the levels 0 through 4 in this system are sufficiently different along
other known dimensions of risk behavior to make any such system useful in practice.
In otherwords, we will need to use these raw scores to compute a new variable that comes
to define a varying level of gang involvement. The value of such an approach to analyzing
the other type of data we have in this research project, is that this helps us to go beyond a
myopic and artificial analytical definition of "gang involvement". The hypothesis is very clear
at least: we should see an ascending level of threat in other measurements along the same risks
levels (0, 1, 2, and 3). This is truly a different way of looking at the same data and retesting
almost all gang theory concepts and gang research hypotheses of interest.
We shall turn to that analysis now.
FIGURE 4
The Ten Separate Measurements Used to Construct
The Gang Risk Assessment Continuum:
An Additive Index of Gang Risk Behavior
The Basic Screening Questions and Rules for Scoring:
1. Have one or more close friends and associates who are gang members, add one point
(ITEM75>=1).
2. If they have family members who are in a gang, add one point (ITEM94=1).
3. Considers self a current "associate" of any gang group or gang organization, add one point
(ITEM78=1).
4. Has a gang tattoo, add one point (ITEM36C=1).
5. Ever joined a gang, add one point (ITEM76A=1).
6. Is still active in the gang, add one point (ITEM77=1).
7. Been in a gang for 5 years or more, add one point (ITEM76E>=5).
8. Ever held rank or leadership position in the gang, add one point (ITEM80=1).
9. Ever helped recruit new members into the gang, add one point (ITEM105=1).
10. Ever fired a gun at someone because they were threatening the drug business of their
gang, add one point (ITEM99=1).
11. Has never attempted to quit the gang after joining, add one point (ITEM76A=1 &
95
ITEM79=0).
12. Ever been a shooter in a drive-by shooting, add one point (ITEM101A=1).
13. Ever fired a gun at someone in defense of their gang turf, add one point (ITEM100=1).
14.
Expect to be a gang member for the next five years, add one point
(ITEM32+5)<=(ITEM118).
15. Willing to die for their gang friends, add one point (ITEM102=1).
TABLE 12
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of
Gang Risk Scale Scores
(The Additive Index of Gang Risk Behavior, see Figure 4)
Gang
Risk
Scale
Score
Values
N
0
463
1
541
2
215
3
135
4
151
5
143
6
204
7
214
8
215
9
245
10
215
11
219
12
193
13
126
14
57
15
12
********
Totals 3348
%
Risk Level
13.8
Level zero
16.2___ Level zero^
6.4
Level one
4.0
4.5
4.3___ Level one^
6.1
Level two
6.4
6.4
7.3____Level two^
6.4
Level three
6.5
5.8
3.8
1.7
.4____Level three^
******
100.0
FINDINGS FROM THE GANG RISK CLASSIFICATION ANALYSIS
Table 13 presents the reference table for a number of variables shown to be consistently
significantly differentiated by the gang risk classification system. In the gang risk
classification system, there are four levels (0, 1, 2, and 3), the higher the level the higher the
gang involvement risk. The classification system is based on different questions about gang
involvement (see Figure 4) which are used to develop an additive scale score (see Table 12).
The distribution of the raw scale score values also provided the basis for separating the scores
96
into the Level 0 through Level 3 categories.
Table 13, because it is an extensive reference table containing a number of different
findings, is provided for easy reference at the end of this chapter.
Table 13 shows that this type of classification really does smooth out the data on a wide
variety of important factors. In other words, we get a logically consistent distribution of a
number of relevant variables using the classification system. There is a definite progression
up and down the levels of gang involvement risk is what Table 13 shows.
It is helpful, before discussing some of these findings from the risk or threat analysis, to
also briefly explain what might be a more commonly used language for these four
classification categories. For the most part, a "Level 0" is a non-gang member, a neutron
maybe, possibly even a real ex-gang member. A Level 1 category includes persons at-risk,
but with a low level of involvement in the gang: these can be gang associates, wannabes, etc.
A Level 2 category is similar to a regular or core gang member, but is basically someone with
a moderate level of gang involvement, perhaps someone new to gang life. A Level 3 category
is what some call a hard core gang member, but is more often than not a gang leader or
someone with a great deal of gang involvement.
Another way to view the gang risk classification system is it is a kind of "step ladder", the
higher one goes on the ladder, the higher one is involved in gang risks.
From the healthcare model of prevention, primary prevention would be directed at a Level
0 group; secondary intervention could be used on a Level 1 group; and one faces tertiary
intervention in dealing with a Level 2 or Level 3 group.
The Greater The Gang Involvement, The Greater The Skepticism in Gang Prevention
Programs
As seen in Table 13, there is a steady progression effect in this skepticism about gang
prevention the higher one goes on the gang risk ladder. Believe in the effectiveness of
programs that try to prevent kids from getting involved in gangs is highest in the Level Zero
group, where two thirds (68.5%) believe such programs can be effective. This reduces to half
(48.3%) among the Level Three group.
Nearly the same effect is shown for a closely related question "do you think gang
prevention programs can be effective in preventing persons from joining a gang". Here we
have the highest belief about effectiveness with those in Level One (64.1%) which reduces
to less than half (43.3%) for the Level Three group.
The More Involved in the Gang, The Less Worry About the Future Facing Today's
Children
The pattern here is very clear: the more gang-involved person really does worry less about
the future facing today's children. Such a person at a level three on the gang ladder or gang
risk continuum probably does have more immediate things to worry about, evidence of which
also surfaces in Table 13. We will also see shortly that the more gang involved person is also
more likely to want kids in the gang. Table 13 does show the variable for the question "I
worry about the future facing today's children" yields a pattern of support that deteriorates the
higher one goes in the gang risk continuum.
The Higher The Gang Involvement Classification, The Higher The Belief That
Educational, Counseling, and Training Programs Are A Waste of Time for Kids At Risk
of Joining A Gang
Table 13 shows the same basic trend for three different questions along these lines. Again,
the pattern is very consistent: the higher up in the gang involvement ladder one goes, the
97
higher the skepticism about these three common gang prevention efforts (education,
counseling, and job training). For example, at the low end of the gang risk continuum (Level
0) only 19 percent believe that job training programs are a waste of time for kids at risk of
joining a gang. This rises to 28.6 percent for the Level Three group! A pattern found in
Chapter 4 is therefore again confirmed here with a more fine-tuned measurement of gang
involvement.
Bullying: The Essential Resume Item for Gang Involvement
The gang both attracts and produces persons with records of antagonism toward their
society. Table 13 shows a fascinating pattern for the bullying variable with regard to the gang
risk classification system. The classification system that we developed here, which
emphasizes variability in the concept of gang involvement, seems to have also been able to
significantly isolate the low to high levels of bullying behavior. In fact, the trend here is so
strong that bullying almost seems to be an essential resume item for higher level gang
involvement. At least, the trend is very clear: at the low end of the spectrum (Level Zero)
only 42.9 percent were bullies, while at the high end of the gang involvement spectrum nearly
two thirds were bullies in school (73.5%).
No Surprise: The Higher The Gang Involvement, The Higher The Incidence of Juvenile
Incarceration Experiences
As seen in Table 13, the gang risk continuum does account for a consistent pattern with
regard to the correctional sanction for juveniles. We would recommend examining in future
research the timing of these sanctions in the human development lifespan of the same gang
members. But it is clear in Table 13 that those at the higher end of the gang involvement
spectrum are also those who are more likely to report that they have been locked up in a
juvenile correctional center or institution.
Family: The Role of the Father Revisited
Recall that the survey asked the respondents whether they felt the following statement was
true or false: "My father never punished me for misbehavior". As seen in Table 13, the real
difference that emerges is at the higher end of the gang involvement continuum. It is for this
Level 3 gang-risk group that over a third (36.9%) indicate that in fact their father never did
punish them for misbehavior.
Dogmatism and the Gang Personality
Table 13 shows another interesting trend in regard to the variable measuring stereotypy.
This is the question asking the respondents to agree or disagree with the statement: "people
can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong". It is also an aspect of
dogmatism in the gang personality is what Table 13 suggests. Clearly, as seen in Table 13,
the higher one goes on the gang ladder the greater the dogmatism.
Gang Members Have Had More, Not Less Help
As discussed in chapters 3 and 4, we were quickly able to rule out one type of
contemporary thinking on the gang problem: the idea that gang members are in gangs because
they have not had any help from their society in terms of intervention programs and services.
Table 13 shows a clear pattern with regard to three separate variables in this regard: ever
being in court-mandated psychological counseling or therapy, ever being involved in group
98
therapy, and ever being involved in a counseling program. The trend is very clear in Table
13, the higher the involvement in the gang the more the individual also reports he or she has
had the benefit of these three intervention services or programs. We will later address the
issue of whether the costs outweigh the benefits of continued such services at the higher end
of the gang involvement spectrum.
One thing is very clear: the gang members are getting more, not less such services. This
could be the very nature of the filtering process in gang life. Those at the higher end of the
gang involvement spectrum may therefore represent those whom society has tried in different
ways to help, it just did not work. We are aware of how some gang interventionists believe
that the most gang prevention impact is to be derived from working with and providing
special services to the truly "hard core", the logic being this group has the greatest negative
impact. While we cannot argue with the apparently good assumption that the higher end of
the gang spectrum individual is also, obviously, the person more likely to wreak havoc on
society (at least as when compared to those at the lower levels of the gang risk continuum),
it does not logically follow that prevention and intervention services are necessarily going to
work on those who have already had the benefit of such services. The larger issue is the
matter of limited resources: two few services to go around, and far more problem-oriented
persons deserving of such scarce resources. For reasons developed in this study and
elsewhere, the G.R.I.P. (Gang Risk Intervention Paradigm) model discussed later in this
report, basically takes the position of placing greater value at the lower end of the gang
spectrum in terms of pure or primary level prevention and secondary prevention (or
intervention), rather than providing services to the higher end of the threat continuum (i.e.,
rehabilitation or tertiary prevention).
Beliefs About Whether A Boot Camp Could Influence Some People to Get Out of A
Gang Are Inversely Related to Gang Risk Levels
In otherwords, the higher one goes on the gang risk scale, the higher the level of gang risk
the less the person believes that a boot camp could influence someone to get out of a gang.
At the lowest level of gang involvement about half (53.4%) think a boot camp could influence
some persons to get out of a gang. But this reduces to 35.3 percent at the higher end of the
gang involvement spectrum.
The Higher The Gang Involvement, The Greater the School Failure
There are several variables about school in Table 13 that provide very consistent findings
about gang involvement. The real difference in completed a high school degree or the G.E.D.
degree is whether the person has any level of involvement in gangs; those with no
involvement (Level Zero) have the greatest likelihood it seems of achieving these educational
credentials.
Another finding about school failure in Table 13 concerns being demoted in school. The
higher the gang involvement, the higher the likelihood of being demoted in school is the
finding that emerges in Table 13.
Being suspended from school is another measure of school failure, and Table 13 shows
this varies consistently in a fashion where it rises to 92.5 percent for the highest level of gang
involvement.
Being expelled from school is another measure of maladjustment in school and varies
from a low of 43.5 percent for the Level Zero group to a high of 74.8 percent for the Level
Three group.
The Higher the Gang Involvement, The Less Satisfying Experiences With Churches
99
Table 13 shows a clear trend with regard to how these persons rate their experiences with
churches. While more liked these experiences than disliked them, there are some very
important differences on the gang risk continuum. Those at the lowest level of gang
involvement report the higher levels of liking their experiences with churches (82.5%). This
reduces to 71.9 percent for those at the higher end of the gang risk level.
The Higher The Gang Involvement, The More The Individual Expects to Go to Hell
The religious belief that they would go to hell rather than to heaven is shown in Table 13
to nearly double as one moves up the gang risk level categories. At the lowest level of gang
involvement (Level Zero) only 19.3 percent expect to go to hell. This nearly doubles to 38.1
percent for those at the highest level of gang involvement (Level Three).
The Higher The Gang Involvement, The More Likely The Person Is To Have A
Permanent Tattoo
Table 13 is very clear about this particular behavior of having permanent tattoos. Among
those at the lowest level of gang involvement (Level Zero), only 29.9 percent have such
tattoos. This rises consistently the higher one goes on the gang risk continuum and reaches
73.7 percent for the highest level of gang involvement (Level Three).
The Higher the Gang Risk Level, The Lower The Female Representation
Table 13 shows an interesting new finding on gender in relationship to the gang problem.
The percentage of females decreases consistently the further up the gang risk ladder one goes.
This trend is quite consistent: reducing by half the female involvement the higher the level of
gang involvement. Due to this and some other gender effects, many of the present researchers
are joining with others to shortly being Project GANGGEND; the first major study of gender,
sexual behavior, and identity in relationship to gang involvement.
The Higher The Gang Risk Level, The Lower The Belief That Social Work Can Play An
Effective Role in Gang Prevention/Intervention
Three different variables along these lines produced almost identical patterns as seen in
Table 13. The first of these questions asked whether social workers could be effective in
reaching out to person who may want to quit the gang, here the rated effectiveness begins at
66.8 percent for the Level Zero group and reduces to 51.9 percent for the Level Three group.
The second question deals with whether social workers can be effective in helping kids stay
out of gangs, and again the trend goes from 63.1 percent for the Level Zero group to a low of
43.3 percent for the Level Three group. The third question asked "do you think that recreation
programs, after school programs, or social workers might have been able to prevent you from
joining a gang", and the results again range from 63.7 percent for the Level Zero group to a
low of 39.1 percent for the Level Three group.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Lower The Attribution of Negative Effects to the Mass
Media
Those at the lower end of the gang risk continuum are the most likely to believe that if less
attention was given in the mass media to gang members that perhaps fewer people would join
gangs. This belief in a negative effect from the mass media decreases substantially the higher
one goes in the gang risk continuum. As seen in Table 13, the highest level of this belief
about the mass media is found in the Level Zero group (53.7%) but decreases over the
spectrum to a low of 35.8 percent for the Level Three group.
100
Something Gang Recruiters Don't Mention: The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater
The Likelihood of Having Friends or Family Killed Because of Gang Trouble
Table 13 shows a very real aspect of gang life in America today that probably never gets
mentioned by a gang recruiter. At the lowest level of gang involvement (Level Zero) only
27.3 percent report having friends or family members killed in gang violence. This figure
goes up to half (50.8%) for Level One; goes up to two-thirds (66.1%) for Level Two; and up
to 81.4 percent for the Level Three group.
A Kind of Child Abuse Not Formally Recognized as Child Abuse: The Higher The Gang
Risk Level, The More The Person Would Want Their Own Children To Be in a Gang
Obviously, as will be recalled from chapter 3 and chapter 4, most people studied in this
research would not want their children in a gang, including gang members. But there are,
apparently, some other differences here: the more seriously involved gang member is more
likely to want his/her children involved in gang life too is the finding from Table 13. As seen
in Table 13, among those in the lowest level of the gang risk classification system (Level
Zero), only 5.4 percent said they would want their own children in a gang. But this rises to
21.2 percent for those in the Level Three group category.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Higher The Substance Abuse in the Family
The survey question "do you think anyone in your family uses drugs or drinks too much"
is the measure of substance abuse in the family. As seen in Table 13, this factor increases
steadily over the gang risk continuum. At the lowest level of gang involvement (Level Zero)
about half (46.4%) report this substance abuse in the family, but this rises to two-thirds
(65.1%) among those in the Level Three higher risk category.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Lower The Perceived Deterrent Function of Allowing
Juvenile Offenders To Be Identified in the Mass Media
The survey asked the policy-related question: "if the confidentiality of juvenile court was
eliminated, and thus juvenile court would be open to the public and newspapers, do you think
this would discourage more juveniles from committing a crime". In otherwords, this was
asking if the mass media could have a deterrent function regarding juvenile crime. Those
most likely to believe this to be true are those at the lower end of the gang risk continuum
(39.3%), but it decreases steadily to 32.6 percent for the higher gang risk group (Level Three).
Gangs in Correctional Institutions: The Clear And Present Danger of Increased Threats
Along The Gang Risk Continuum
Recall that the gang risk classification system uses different factors to derive a raw score
and then a category of gang risk. This is basic risk or threat analysis. The issue is whether
it could improve the basic security and afford greater safety to the management and operation
of a correctional institution. Table 13 seems to settle this issue with rather conclusive
evidence.
Eleven different factors are shown in Table 13 to be consistently and significantly
differentiated by the gang risk classification system. Clearly, the higher the gang
involvement, the higher the security and behavior threat a person represents while in a
correctional institution is the finding from Table 13. Recall, a separate version of the
instrument was used for those contexts in our study that were correctional environments.
Thus, this data about correctional environments would reflect data that came only from
correctional environments.
Most of our data for this assessment of the role of gangs behind bars comes from juvenile
101
correctional facilities, both short term and long term.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Disciplinary Problems in Correctional
Facilities
Table 13 shows a number of factors along these lines, two of which are direct measures
of how much the gang population comes under the disciplinary system inside correctional
institutions. Asked if they have had any privileges removed or taken away while in custody,
this factor is very consistent and significant as seen in Table 13. At the low end of the gang
risk continuum, 46 percent have had privileges removed, compared to 70.7 percent at the
higher end of the gang risk continuum. For the reader unfamiliar with the corrections system,
one typically loses privileges or has them taken away because of being a disciplinary problem
behind bars.
Similarly, the actual frequency distribution for the number of disciplinary reports is
provided in Table 13. The trend in disciplinary reports shows a much higher rate the higher
one goes in the gang risk continuum.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Higher The Fighting Behavior Behind Bars
The survey item used here is a replication and adaptation from previous health risk
behavior research on gangs, and asks the simple question "have you been in a physical fight
with anyone in this facility". As seen in Table 13, this variable rises consistently as one
progresses up the gang risk continuum. While only 18.1 percent in the low gang risk category
(Level Zero) have been in a physical fight, this fighting behavior rises steadily up the gang
risk continuum to a high of 69.1 percent for the Level Three group. If fighting behavior can
be predicted, as easily as it is differentiated here, then fighting behavior among inmates in
correctional facilities could be prevented by using a gang risk classification system.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Threats of Violence Behind Bars
The survey asked "have you threatened anyone with violence in this facility". As seen in
Table 13, this behavior of threatening violence varies consistently across the gang risk
continuum. At the lower level of gang risk (Level Zero), only 16.2 percent have threatened
violence. This rises continuously across the gang risk continuum to a high of 65.6 percent for
the Level Three gang risk category.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Fighting With Rival Gang Members
Behind Bars
Table 13 demonstrates another consistent trend regarding the safety of other inmates
behind bars regard gangs. The survey asked "have you fought with any rival gang members
in this facility". As seen in Table 13, this type of conflict also escalates along the dimensions
of gang involvement risk classification. It varies from a low of 7.8 percent for the Level Zero
group to a high of 60.3 percent for the Level Three group.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Gang Recruiting That Goes on Behind
Bars
Table 13 suggests a valuable gang prevention methodology: making sure that the more
extremist gang members do not have access to "neutrons" or those not yet involved in gangs.
The survey asked "have you tried to recruit anyone into your gang in this facility". The results
show a consistent rise in this behavior of gang recruiting the higher the gang risk category.
Among those in the higher risk category (Level Three), a third (33.5%) have tried to recruit
new gang members behind bars.
102
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Higher The Problem of Inmates Carrying Homemade
Weapons
The survey asked "have you carried a homemade weapon (knife, etc), in this facility". As
seen in Table 13 this serious problem of carrying improvised weapons is a threat and health
risk behavior that varies consistently across the gang risk continuum. Only 2.3 percent of
those in the Level Zero group report carrying a homemade weapon while in the correctional
institution itself. This increases to 33.3 percent for the Level Three group.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Threats Against Correctional Staff and
Officers
As seen in Table 13, the gang risk continuum is very effective in differentiating these threats
to correctional staff and officers. This threatening behavior is closely associated with the
level of gang involvement. It varies from a low of 3 percent in the Level Zero group to a high
of 37.2 percent in the Level Three group.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater the Violent Behavior Inside Correctional
Populations
The survey asked "did you start a fight with anyone or attack someone while in this
facility". As seen in Table 13, this violent behavior varied consistently along the gang risk
continuum. It ranged from a low of 7.4 percent in the Level Zero group, a fairly manageable
level of violent behavior; to a high of 54.1 percent in the Level Three group --- an almost
unmanageable level of violent behavior behind bars.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The Greater The Attempts To Smuggle Illegal Drugs Into
The Correctional Institution
As seen in Table 13, this type of threat to the security of a correctional institution also varies
directly along the gang risk continuum. Only 1.9 percent of those in the Level Zero group
have attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the correctional institution. This rises to a third
of the inmates (34.6%) among the Level Three or higher gang risk group.
The Higher The Gang Risk, The More Likely The Inmate Gang Members Are To Use
Religious or Cultural Fronts For Their Operations in the Correctional Facility
The survey asked "do any gangs use religious or cultural fronts for their operations in this
facility". Table 13 shows that this factor varies consistently across the gang risk continuum.
As discussed previously in this report, it may also be true that the more serious gang member
may simply be more likely to know the truth about this. The use of existing religious or
cultural front groups for gang operations is shown to vary from a low of 10.7 percent for the
Level Zero group to a high of 29.4 percent for the Level Three group.
We began this chapter discussing the weakness of gang research that has a limited
variability in defining what is or what is not "gang involved" or shows a sign of "gang
involvement". The value of variability in operational definitions of gang involvement is at
103
the heart of any risk or threat analysis system or classification system applied to the
understanding, control, or prevention of gang behavior. File systems in agencies are often not
comparable from one facility to the next in terms of what gets defined as a gang member or
"gang involvement" or "gang-related" incident. Thus, the preferred way to ascertain "gang
involvement" is with primary, not secondary data.
The present study had the blessing of much primary data along these lines. Further, it was
specifically and intentionally planned to be able to be able to differentiate between varying
levels of gang involvement at the individual level or unit of analysis. As seen in Figure 4,
some 15 different questions were used to computer-generate "gang involvement" risk scores
(see Table 12) that were then collapsed into four categories of gang risk dimensions. This
provided the basic gang risk or threat analysis or classification system. The terminology is
not important, the researchers themselves on this project have different disciplinary
orientations that use different words for what amounts to the same thing. In law enforcement,
it is called threat analysis. In corrections, it is called classification. In health care it is called
risk analysis. As our research team did include law enforcement, corrections, and healthcare
experts who are also established and recognized gang research experts, we do not care what
it is called, it is basically all of these in theory, and perhaps only some of these in practice: that
is, it depends how it is used.
Here the gang involvement risk analysis was used to take a closer look at some major
issues and problems that will have to be confronted in any coherent strategy to implement a
logical and theoretically consistent gang prevention and gang intervention policy at a national
level. That has obviously been, all researchers on the present project agree, sorely lacking
historically in the government and private sector responses to the gang problem in America.
The profile that emerges here from the gang risk analysis is very consistent across the
levels of gang involvement. We can summarize these findings in terms of hypotheses that we
challenge other gang analysts to test for themselves.
The greater the level of involvement in gang life: the greater the skepticism such persons
have towards gang prevention programs; the less they worry about the future facing today's
children; the more they believe that traditional programs (education, counseling, job training)
are a waste of time for kids at risk of joining a gang; the more they are likely to have a
background of being bullies in school; the more they are likely to have been incarcerated in
a juvenile correctional institution; the more likely the persons father did not punish them for
misbehavior; the greater the tendency toward dogmatic beliefs, like stereotypy; the more these
persons also had the benefit of societal responses (court-mandated psychological counseling
or therapy, being involved in group therapy or counseling programs, etc); the less the believe
"Boot Camps" could help anyone drop out of a gang; the greater their individual school failure
(not finishing high school, being suspended or expelled); the less satisfying their church
experiences; the more they believe they will go to hell in the afterlife; the more likely they are
to have a permanent tattoo; the less likely they are to be female; the less they believe social
work can make a difference in prevention and intervention with gangs; the less they believe
the media has a negative impact; the more likely they are to have had family/friends killed in
gang violence; the more they want their own children to be in gangs; the higher the substance
abuse in their family; the less they believe lifting the secrecy of juvenile court would prevent
additional juvenile crime; and a long list of threat behaviors in the correctional environment:
including - disciplinary problems, fighting behavior, threats of violence, fighting with rival
gangs, gang recruiting while in custody, carrying improvised weapons, threatening staff or
correctional officers, attempts to smuggle in illegal drugs into the correctional institution, and
using religious or cultural fronts for gang operations.
104
This chapter has not examined the relationship between the gang risk classification levels
and the characteristics of organizational sophistication or organizational structure reported by
the same gang members as well as a host of other variables that focus almost exclusively on
describing the gang itself as a social group entity or social organization. What we do know
is that this is another story altogether that remains to be told that may help understand other
pitfalls in past and contemporary gang research: the kind of gang members studied may also
limit the kind of "gangs" being studied, leading researchers to premature conclusions about
organizational sophistication in the gang world today.
Table 13
Factors Significantly Differentiated By
The Gang Risk Classification System
Higher the Level, Higher the Risk--> Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Do you think that programs
can be effective in
preventing kids from
getting involved in gangs?
Percent YES
68.5
60.2
55.1
48.3
Chi-square = 79.1, p < .001
Do you think gang prevention
programs can be effective in
preventing persons from
joining a gang?
Percent YES
64.1
Chi-square = 80.5, p < .001
I worry about the future
facing today's children.
Percent TRUE
88.1
Chi-square = 34.7, p < .001
educational programs is a
waste of time.
Percent AGREE
24.1
Chi-square = 32.2, p < .001
waste of time.
Percent AGREE
25.8
Chi-square = 49.1, p < .001
105
57.9
53.4
43.3
83.1
82.1
76.3
27.8
32.8
31.1
36.2
35.6
40.8
job training programs is a
waste of time.
Percent AGREE
19.0
Chi-square = 24.3, p < .001
22.7
25.5
Did you ever "bully" someone
in school.
Percent YES
42.9 54.1
63.6
Chi-square = 184.9, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Have you ever been locked up
in a juvenile correctional
center or institution?
Percent YES
60.5 70.2
80.1
Chi-square = 185.4, p <. 001
My father never punished me
for misbehavior.
Percent TRUE
28.7 29.4
Chi-square = 15.4, p = .001
People can be divided into
two distinct classes: the
weak and the strong.
Percent AGREE
49.6 56.4
Chi-square = 59.1, p < .001
Have you ever been in courtmandated psychological
counseling or therapy?
Percent YES
41.2 49.5
Chi-square = 56.3, p < .001
Have you ever been involved
in "group therapy"?
Percent YES
48.3
Chi-square = 9.04, p = .02
Have you ever been involved
in any counseling program?
Percent YES
53.1
Chi-square = 26.5, p < .001
Do you think a "boot camp"
could influence some people
to get out of a gang?
Percent YES
53.4
Chi-square = 62.6, p < .001
106
28.6
73.5
87.3
30.8
36.9
58.8
68.0
52.5
59.4
51.6
52.1
55.5
56.0
57.9
65.1
48.7
41.9
35.3
Have you ever received a
high school degree or G.E.D.
degree?
Percent YES
22.1
Chi-square = 37.9, p < .001
13.9
13.3
12.9
77.8
71.9
52.6
73.7
29.2
38.1
44.9
46.0
49.5
13.3
10.2
7.0
TABLE 11: Continued
How would you rate your
experiences with churches?
Percent LIKED IT 82.5
78.0
Chi-square = 26.6, p < .001
Do you have a permanent
tattoo?
Percent YES
29.9
Chi-square = 357.3, p < .001
Assume there is a God. So
if you died right now, where
would you go?
Percent TO HELL
19.3
Chi-square = 68.5, p < .001
Have you ever been demoted
in school?
Percent YES
38.3
Chi-square = 23.0, p < .001
39.8
26.4
Gender.
Percent FEMALE 16.7
Chi-square = 40.6, p < .001
Do you think that social
workers can be effective in
reaching out to persons who
might want to quit the gang?
Percent YES
66.8
Chi-square = 45.2, p < .001
Percent YES
63.1
Chi-square = 75.8, p < .001
Do you think that recreation
107
64.1
57.9
51.9
61.0
54.9
43.3
programs, after school
programs, or social workers
might have been able to
prevent you from joining
a gang?
Percent YES
63.7
Chi-square = 105.4, p < .001
57.5
51.1
39.1
43.6
35.8
50.8
66.1
81.4
11.5
17.6
21.2
55.9
60.2
65.1
38.7
35.8
32.6
TABLE 11: Continued
attention was given to gangs
on television, in newspapers,
and in movies that fewer
people would join gangs?
Percent YES
53.7 50.4
Chi-square = 61.8, p < .001
Have any of your friends or
family been killed because
of gang trouble?
Percent YES
27.3
Chi-square = 554.3, p < .001
to be in a gang?
Percent YES
5.4
Chi-square = 102.4, p < .001
Do you think anyone in
your family uses drugs
or drinks too much?
Percent YES
46.4
Chi-square = 66.3, p < .001
If the confidentiality of
juvenile court was
eliminated, and thus
juvenile court would be
open to the public and the
newspapers, do you think
this would discourage more
juveniles from committing
a crime?
Percent YES
39.3
Chi-square = 9.62, p = .02
Have you ever been
suspended from school?
108
Percent YES
78.8
Chi-square = 63.9, p < .001
82.2
82.3
92.5
53.0
60.5
74.8
Have you ever been
expelled from school?
Percent YES
43.5
Chi-square = 177.7, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Have you had any "privileges"
removed or taken away while
in this facility?
Percent YES 46.0
57.2
Chi-square = 79.6, p < .001
fight with anyone in
this facility?
Percent YES 18.1
Chi-square = 263.6, p < .001
40.8
with violence in this facility?
Percent YES 16.2 36.6
Chi-square = 253.4, p < .001
Have you fought with any
rival gang members in
this facility?
Percent YES 7.8
25.4
Chi-square = 250.2, p < .001
Have you tried to recruit
anyone into your gang
in this facility?
Percent YES
1.8
14.7
Chi-square = 108.6, p < .001
Have you carried a homemade
weapon (knife, etc) in
this facility?
Percent YES
2.3 15.3
Chi-square = 166.5, p < .001
69.8
70.7
49.7
69.1
47.9
65.6
41.3
60.3
29.8
33.5
31.6
33.3
30.3
37.2
Percent YES
3.0 18.0
Chi-square = 173.6, p < .001
How many "disciplinary" reports
109
have you had while in
this facility?
(Note: Actual Frequency Used)
NONE
196
151
ONE
67
46
TWO
31
31
THREE 21
35
FOUR
20
22
FIVE OR MORE 35
95
Chi-square = 176.8, p < .001
TABLE 11: Continued
Did you start a fight with
anyone or attack someone
Percent YES
7.4
25.7
Chi-square = 266.9, p < .001
Have you tried to smuggle in
any illegal drugs while
in this facility?
Percent YES
1.9
Chi-square = 197.2, p < .001
164
65
57
55
66
163
136
65
45
56
41
232
44.1
54.1
10.4
27.0
34.6
17.7
27.2
29.4
Do any gangs use religious
or cultural fronts for their
operations in this facility?
Percent YES
10.7
Chi-square = 41.7, p < .001
110
CHAPTER 6
The Relationship Between Individual Gang Risk Behavior
and the Gang as a Group or Organizational Structure
INTRODUCTION
One of the first things a novice to the field of gang studies learns is that there is much
disagreement and often diametrically opposed conclusions about what gangs do and how
sophisticated gangs are as organizational entities, i.e., social groups and social organizations.
One of the first things an empirical gang researcher learns in the field is that this
"disagreement" in the professional gang literature is less a mystery due to theoretical
orientations than it is a matter of research methodology itself: less sophisticated gangs, and
less threatening gang members are easier to study. We postulate that much of this confusion
today among some authors in the gang literature, about whether gangs are mostly loose-knit
groups or organized groups, derives from the way the same researchers actually conduct their
research. That is, gang research that covers the lower end of the gang risk continuum will
pick up a lower level of gang sophistication, and conversely the higher end of the gang risk
continuum will be able to identify a more complex style of gang organizational structure.
There is no controversy in this way of looking at the past research, what we have are
differences only in the kinds of gangs and gang members studied: the lack of variability in
research access to this underground phenomenon therefore limits generalizability, even though
such individual authors with small research efforts have not been reluctant to make large
generalizations about the world of gangs in modern America today.
In otherwords, an important piece of the gang knowledge puzzle can be solved by the
present research. In spite of what some authors are willing to conclude about the complexity
of gang organizational structures that exist in the United States today, the present data
environment was specifically designed to obtain primary data along the dimensions of the
types of gang groups or gang organizations that exist in the United States today. This data
encompasses 24 different social contexts for our sampling strategy in 8 different states. This
sampling strategy includes the east, the midwest, the south, and the west; major urban areas
like Los Angeles County and Chicago, as well as smaller rural areas and "heartland" areas.
Thus, unlike most gang research ours does provide comparative data across many
jurisdictions. Most gang research has lacked such a comparative analytical capability. Also,
unlike most gang research, our data is not limited to the at-large schoolroom population, it
includes some of the hardest data to get access to: those behind bars, inside juvenile, youth,
111
and adult correctional institutions. In fact, the present study includes the single largest sample
of confined persons ever reported in the gang research literature. Most such previous research
has relied on groups easily accessed from one state only. And most such previous research
on the confined gang member population has had to rely on official records as secondary data,
while our research through much effort relies on primary data.
In light of these observations, we argue that our research is best able to speak to the issues of
organizational complexity.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GANG INVOLVEMENT AND GANG
STRUCTURES
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between gang involvement and
gang structures. For this purpose, we will use the gang risk classification system discussed
in chapter 5, but only using as our sample for analysis those in categories 1, 2 and 3. In
otherwords, including the Level Zero group would not be justified in examining gang
structures: something non-gang members are not expected to know anything about. Those in
the most advantageous position to know about gang structures are those with actual levels of
gang involvement. Thus, it makes only good sense to eliminate the Level Zero gang
involvement risk category for purposes of the analysis undertaken here.
Unlike the analysis in chapter 5, the present chapter looks at the gang as a collective, as
a social entity, as a group or as an organizational structure. While chapter 5 examined gang
involvement in relationship to other threat and risk behaviors of gang members, or related
beliefs, these were at the individual level. In otherwords what was being measured in the
chapter 5 was mostly information about the individual, not the individual's group or
organization. The present chapter uses the categories 1, 2 and 3 in the gang involvement risk
scale to examine these measures of gang involvement in relationship to information describing
the gang itself as a social organizational structure. The reader will recall from chapter 3 that
a number of different questions in the survey for this research project sought information not
about the individual, but about the kind of group, the type of organization (i.e., gang) the
person actually belonged to.
For convenience, the findings discussed here are presented in Table 14. Table 14 is a long
reference table and is located at the very end of this chapter.
The Basic Profile of the Gang Involvement Risk Levels
The first three findings in Table 14 describe findings about the basic profile of the gang
involvement risk levels, and help to simply define what we mean by these categories. A Level
One group therefore is typically: half have joined the gang, and most others are gang
associates. A Level Two group reflects mostly those who have joined a gang, two-thirds of
which are still active members in the gang. A Level Three group is composed of more serious
levels of gang involved: 99 percent have joined a gang, 94 percent are still active, 80 percent
have held rank or leadership in their gang. What shakes out in comparing these levels of gang
involvement is a classification system reflecting low, medium, and high levels of gang
involvement. Now we can turn to those findings where this level of gang involvement is also
significant in relationship to measurements about the nature of the gang itself as a social
organizational entity.
The Gang as A Coercive Compliance Structure
Obviously, a gang that uses violence on its members to enforce internal rules and
112
regulations of the gang is a gang that is more sophisticated organizationally and functionally
than one that does not "violate" its members for infractions. Table 14 shows that if we
examine whether or not the same gang member has been "violated" by his/her own gang, that
this in fact is very strongly associated with levels of gang involvement: the higher the gang
involvement, the more likely the gang member is to report having been "violated" by his/her
gang. For example, among the Level One group category (low level of gang involvement)
only a fourth (25.1%) have been "violated" (i.e., received a type of physical punishment or
beating from their own gang). This rises to 42.9 percent for the Level Two category and to
half of the gang members (51.8%) in the Level Three category. As an aside, it may be
valuable to explore at a later point in this report the hypothesis about compliance generally:
are the gang members who have been punished or disciplined by their own gang also more
likely to have been through a long list of disciplinary measures from high school to their
incarceration experiences?
Gangs That Have A Special Language Code
Obviously, a gang that has a special language code is one that is more organizationally
developed than one that does not have a special language code. There are many examples of
these special language codes among American gangs today. In these special language codes,
subcultural argot is mixed with regular words and expressions that have double meanings,
producing a linguistic subsystem that is capable of being used to communicate exact meanings
covertly to other members of the same gang. For example, someone hollers out from a group
"knowledge, wisdom, and understanding", or wears a shirt or hat saying "Universal
Knowledge", this may all seem like nothing more than simple words from the English
language: but it is not, the phrase "knowledge, wisdom, and understanding" comes from the
first three meanings of the first three "points" in the star of David symbol used by Gangster
Disciple gang members, it is an expression that they can use to basically represent their gang
in a coded expression. Similarly, "Universal Knowledge" is a code word for the same thing
among Gangster Disciples.
In correctional settings, inmates of one gang communicate their presence to members of
the same gang using such special language codes. For example, in a lock-up, or jail setting,
when a new member arrives that no one else can see because they are all locked down in their
cells, it is not uncommon for the person if he or she is a gang member to do a "shout out".
The person will might holler something like "twenty-two twelve", the alphanumeric code for
V.L., or Vice Lord. The person is saying he or she is a member of the Vice Lords. Someone
else locked up nearby in shouting distance might holler back "nine twenty two twelve",
meaning that person is an Insane Vice Lord. And if the original new person to the lock-up
hollers back "one nine twenty two twelve" he is saying "almighty insane vice lords", and
basically says by coded message he or she is a member of the same gang.
Table 14 shows that among those in the Level One category of gang involvement a third
(34%) report having a special language code. This rises to half (55.9%) for the Level Two
category of gang involvement. And then rises to two-thirds (68.5%) for the Level Three
category. Clearly, there is a differentiation occurring here: lower levels of gang involvement
are associated with less sophistication regarding special language codes, and higher levels of
gang involvement are associated with descriptions of their gang as being more
organizationally complex in this respect.
Gangs That Have Written Rules
Table 14 also shows that whether the gang has written rules is also a factor that seems to
vary with the level of gang involvement. Having written rules is an aspect of greater
113
organizational sophistication. That is, a gang with written rules is more organized than one
without written rules for its members. One of the common elements in these internal written
rules for gang members is typically about secrecy: don't tell anyone about what really goes on
in our organization, i.e., don't divulge "nation business". Ethnographers and participant
observers of gangs, not surprisingly often come away with no knowledge of the written rules
or the prayers or the written constitution of gangs like the Latin Kings and Vice Lords --- two
that clearly have this type of organizational infrastructure feature. A classic example is David
Dawley's book about the Vice Lords, someone who so identifies with the gang that he is
shown in a picture in the book exhibiting the gang stand (arms crossed to the left), and who
actually makes the claim of being the only white member of the Vice Lords; but no where in
his account do we ever find out about the written rules of the Vice Lords.
A clear progression is shown in Table 14 regarding this aspect of gang structure. The
percentage of gang members reporting their gang has written rules varies from a low of 42.4
percent for the Level One group to a high of 69.3 percent for the Level Three group.
Gangs With Adult Leaders Who Have Been in the Gang For Many Years
There are many youths or young people in the branches of the U.S. armed forces, but no
one would refer to the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, or Coast Guard as "youth
organizations". Churches, Mosques, and Synagogues while they have youth and juvenile
members of their respective flocks are similarly not referred to as a collective identity as a
"youth organization". The issue here is that a gang that is basically administered by older
adults is not a "youth gang" or a "juvenile gang" just because it has youths or juveniles as
members, rather it is more accurate to say it is an adult driven organization that contains
youths. One of the questions about gang structure gets directly at this issue.
Obviously, the natural variation in gangs is such that there truly are collections of youths
without adult leaders, but we would suspect these smaller less formally organized gangs are
a significantly lower threat to public safety than the more organized adult led gang
organizations. The pure youth gang may also be more likely to be a product of indigenous
formation, at least we can test this hypothesis in our present research at a later point in the
report.
As seen in Table 14, the real difference that emerges in regard to whether the gang has
adult leaders who have been in the gang for many years, is in comparing the lowest level of
gang involvement (Level One) with the other two categories. About half (55.6%) of the Level
One gang members report their gang has adult leaders who have a long period of tenure in the
gang. But this jumps to 83 percent for the Level Two group and to 91.3 percent for the Level
Three group. Again, we are seeing a clear differentiation of gang structure by levels of gang
involvement.
Gangs That Exist in Several Different Geographical Areas
A truly local gang is a gang that exists in only one specific geographical area. A gang that
has units of operation that are in several different geographical locations, perhaps even noncontiguous geographically, is a more complex organizational structure. Here again, as seen
in Table 14, this aspect of gang structure is shown to vary with the level of gang involvement.
Some 60.9 percent of the Level One gang members report their gang exists in several different
geographical areas, compared to 80.4 percent for the Level Three group.
Exogenous Formation
An issue about gang etiology, how the gang first originates, as one of many concerns about
gang proliferation (see Knox, Tromanhauser, McCurrie, and Laske, 1996), is whether the
114
gang arose because of indigenous formation (i.e., it arose on its own locally without contact
from gangs by the same name from another area) or whether it was due to exogenous
formation (i.e., the gang first arose by contact with the same gang in another city). We
suspect both phenomena are occurring, it is not an issue of one or the other, as we assume
natural variation in this factor as well. But Table 14 does show an interesting finding about
exogenous formation: this factor is also related to the level of gang involvement. Some 37.1
percent in the Level One group report their gang arose in the fashion of exogenous formation,
compared to 51.5 percent for the Level Three group. It is reasonable to therefore argue that
gangs arising from exogenous influence will have greater organizational sophistication,
because they will have joined a larger alliance structure with friendly contacts in other cities.
Gangs That Have A Private Attorney Used For Criminal Matters
Table 14 shows a clear trend in regard to whether the gang has the organizational
sophistication to have a private attorney used for defending its members in criminal matters.
This finding is consistent with several others in Table 14, particularly about dues and whether
the gang maintains a treasury, because this is how a gang pays an attorney: and typically in
cash. Only 20.3 percent of the Level One gang members report their gang has this capability,
but this figure doubles (45.9%) for the Level Three group.
Gang That Keep An Account That Pays Only for Legal Defense
Most any social organization or voluntary association would admire this aspect of
organizational sophistication: a provision for legal defense. As seen in Table 14, about a
fourth (24.5%) of the Level One gang members report their gang has this capability, compared
to half (51.2%) of the Level Three gang members. Clearly, again, this aspect of gang
organizational sophistication does vary with the severity level of the individual gang
members.
Gangs That Hold Regular Meetings
This is a basic issue for any social organization or volunteer group: a group that does not
hold regular meetings is truly a loose knit group in some respects. Just as it is true that a
group that holds regular meetings is one that has a higher level of organizational functioning
than one that does not. Table 14 shows that about half (49.5%) of the Level One gang
members report their gang holds regular meetings, compared to 86.1 percent for the Level
Three group.
Familial Ties in Gang Life
This is an issue of greater solidarity by blending the social networks any individual has and
it means, theoretically, a stronger organizational cohesiveness when family ties are mixed
together with gang ties. Table 14 shows that while 45.6 percent of the Level One gang
members report they have family members who are in a gang, this rises to 64.8 percent for the
Level Two group, and to a high of 86.2 percent for the Level Three group.
Gangs That Maintain A Treasury
This is an obvious feature measuring organizational sophistication: a gang that maintains
a common treasury for collective expenditures is one more sophisticated than a gang that does
not maintain a treasury.
Typical expenditures from a gang treasury are: gang
clothing/emblems/paraphernalia, guns, ammunition, parties, and small token payments to
incarcerated members as well as, obviously, lawyers. For detailed information on gang
treasuries see Project GANGECON (1995).
Table 14 shows a clear pattern in regard to gangs that maintain treasuries in relationship
115
to the gang involvement classification system. A third (33.3%) of the Level One gang
members report their gang has a treasury, compared to two thirds (68.4%) of the Level Three
group. Clearly, the same overall pattern appears here as well: the higher threat level gang
members are associated with more organizationally sophisticated gang organizations; and vice
versa.
Gangs That Require Members to Pay Regular Dues
This is another basic element of gang organization where we expect natural variation to
exist. It is also, however, a matter of organizational sophistication. A gang that cannot gain
regular, typically weekly, dues in small amounts ($5 or $6), is not a particularly sophisticated
gang. Paying dues to gangs is also usually enforced by means of "violations": someone who
does not pay dues can be "violated" (i.e., physically beaten).
Table 14 shows that a fourth (25.7%) of the Level One gang members report they pay dues
to their gang, compared to 44.5 percent of the Level Three gang members. So the difference
that emerges here is really between the Level One group compared with levels two and three
generally.
Gangs That Require Participation in Illegal Activity
A gang that requires persons to participate in illegal activities before being considered a
real member of the gang is a gang that also has a greater level of control over members. In
other words, it is a gang requiring greater sacrifice and risk from its members; and in this
sense is a stronger gang than a gang that has no expectations from its members. It is an matter
of organizational functioning in gang behavior, and there obviously exist gangs like this, just
as there are variants of gang organizational styles where a member may be afforded the choice
to be involved in the crime end of gang business or not. We expect, after all, with the
thousands of gangs that exist in the United States today that such variation should logically
exist.
Table 14 shows, clearly, that the higher end of the individual gang member threat level
is associated with a more complex gang form. A fourth (25.8%) of the Level One gang
members report their gang requires some illegal activity before a person can become accepted
as a member of the gang. However, this rises to 45.9 percent in the Level Three group.
Parental Complicity in Gang Organizations
A sad fact of life in dealing with the American gang problem today is that some parents
are actively involved with the gang, and that could include their children being involved in
the same gang. We are aware of a number of cases of parents raising their children to be gang
members. Just as we are aware of cases where in the same family the siblings belong to rival
gangs.
Table 14 is very clear about the factor of parental complicity in gang life today. When
asked "in your gang, are there members whose parents are also active gang members", we see
this is no small problem. Some 45.4 percent of the Level One group report this factor of
parental complicity, and it rises to 79.2 percent for the Level Three group. Obviously, a gang
with both parent and offspring in the same gang means the gang has the benefit of being a
kind of "family affair" and adds legitimacy to the gang as a social organizational enterprise.
It is a factor to consider in investigating gang structures and in Table 14 it is also shown to
vary by the level of individual gang risk as well.
Parents Who Approve of the Gang Membership of Their Children
As seen in Table 14, fortunately this appears to be a relatively rare phenomenon, but it does
occur and as seen here it is related to the individual level of gang risk. This would appear to
116
suggest that parental complicity is not particularly a common occurrence. As only 4.3 percent
of those in the Level One group indicated their parents approved of their gang involvement.
This does rise to 11.4 percent for the Level Three group. So there is some variation here in
the expected direction.
Autonomy and Social Control in Gang Organizations
A gang that operates more like a cult and basically the other gang members know the
personal business of the members is a more sophisticated gang organizationally than a gang
where the individual member can maintain a secret and private life away from the gang. A
gang that operates more like a cult and thus each member's personal life is known to other
members is an organizational structure with greater social control over that member.
Conversely, a gang that does not know much about each member's personal life is a gang that
offers more autonomy and anonymity to its members, but may lack the solidarity that comes
from close intimate ties.
Table 14 is clear about this factor: some 37 percent of the Level One gang members report
that in their gang, each member's personal life is known to other members. But this rises to
56.3 percent for the Level Three group. The issue of organizational sophistication involved
here is the matter of having a "self" or personal identity that exists independently of the gang
identity. A gang that knows the personal business of each member is equivalent in some sense
to a total control institution.
Vertically Structured Gang Organizations
As seen in Table 14, the way we have measured this aspect of gang organization is similar
to the way of investigating any social organization. The survey asked whether the respondent
felt it was true or false that "in my gang, the things the gang does are approved by a higher up
leader". This basically measures the aspect of vertically structured gang organizations. We
recognize, here as well, that there is bound to be variation in this factor; the alternative to
vertically structured gangs being horizontally structured gangs.
Table 14 shows that 40.4 percent of the Level One gang members report their gang is
vertically structured, compared to 55.5 percent of the Level Three gang members.
Gangs That Maintain Membership Lists
Chances are that if gangs collect dues, gangs also maintain a membership list. Some
gangs, obviously, do maintain a list of names of its members. As seen in Project
GANGECON (1995), this is also common where the gang holds regular meetings: the gang
wants to know who shows up late, and the gang will punish (i.e., violate) members who
continually miss required meetings. The issue is simple though: we expect this factor of gang
organizational sophistication to also vary in the gang world. Some gangs do and some gangs
don't maintain membership lists. But those that do are more organizationally sophisticated.
Table 14 shows that 40.4 percent of the gang members in the Level One group report their
gang maintains a membership list. But this rises to 55.5 percent for the Level Three threat
group.
Gangs That Can Fine Members for Mistakes
This is an easily recognized factor of organizational sophistication: a gang that can fine
its members for mistakes. Table 14 shows that some 44 percent of the gang members in the
Level One group report that their gang has this capability, compared with 63 percent in the
Level Three group. Clearly, we see an ongoing interaction between the severity level of the
117
gang risk or involvement level and the type of organizationally sophisticated gang the person
belongs to.
Heterogeneous Gangs: Having Asian Members
It is a complex issue here to explain how a racially or ethnically heterogeneous gang is
more organizationally sophisticated than one that is homogeneous, but where it comes into
play particularly is in the transition to organized crime forms. Table 14 does show that this
trend is consistent. Some 36.4 percent of the Level One gang members reported having Asian
members in their gang, but this rises to 48.9 percent for the Level Three gang members.
Gangs That Get Greater Member Mobilization From Intense News Coverage
Table 14 shows that under the condition where there is intense news coverage of their
gang, that only 54.7 percent of the Level One gang members report that more members get
involved. However, this rises to 76.2 percent for the Level Three gang members. Thus, it is
fair to say that like anything else, there exists variation in the kind of impact the mass media
has: for some gangs it can increase, and for other gangs it can decrease, membership
involvement in the gang. In otherwords, depending on the gang the coverage can have a
chilling or warming effect.
Gangs That Gain More New Members From Intense News Coverage
Table 14 also shows an interesting trend in this regard as well. Like anything else, when
we examine the effect that the mass media may play in terms of increasing or decreasing gang
power, it really depends on the type of gang being given the media coverage. Table 14 shows
that 58.5 percent of the Level One gang members report that more new members tend to join
under the condition of intensive news coverage of their gang, but this rises to 84 percent in
the Level Three group!
Commitment to the Gang Organization: Dropping Their Flag for the Good Life
Finally, Table 14 shows a measure of commitment to the gang group or organization. It
is based on yes/no answers to the question: "would you quit gang life if you had the chance
to get married, get a good steady job, and live somewhere else". The good news is that
apparently we could eliminate two-thirds to four-fifths of the contemporary American gang
problem if we simply matched up every alienated gang member in a dating service with a
potential spouse and some relocation assistance. In otherwords, a great many are willing to
drop their flag, or quit gang life. However, this does vary by the level of gang risk
classification. Some 80.4 percent of the Level One group would defect from their gang,
compared to two-thirds (66.5%) of the Level Three group.
For the record, we are fascinated with the implications of this finding, enough so to
dedicate an entire new national gang research consortium or Task Force style project to
examine this and other aspects about gang life. Persons interested in joining this large scale
probono gang research initiative should contact the National Gang Crime Research Center.
DEVELOPING A GANG ORGANIZATIONAL SCALE
There have been several previous approaches to investigating gang structures (Project
GANGGUNS, 1994; Project GANGECON, 1995) that the researchers have had a role in. The
present approach therefore reflects an improved methodology towards this goal. Figure 5 lists
the twelve factors that were used to create an additive scale index of gang organizational
sophistication. On this scale, the higher the raw index score, the greater the level of
118
organizational sophistication in the gang the member belonged to. Table 15 provides the
actual distribution for the raw scale score results and shows how the index can be broken
down into a threat analysis system.
As seen in Table 15, classifying the gang organizations in terms of known levels of
sophistication (Figure 5) can basically provide us with four levels of gang threat in terms of
this measure of organizational sophistication. Level Zero in terms of gang organizational
sophistication has the low range of scale scores (0 through 3). Level One in this configuration
reflects scores of 4 through 6. Level Two includes scores of 7 and 8. And Level Three
includes the high range of scores, 9 through 12. Each gang category includes about a fourth
of the sample here. It is also important to note for Table 15 that we are examining here only
the distribution for those in our sample who have gang behavior index scores of one or higher.
This therefore basically includes only gang members in examining gang structures.
FIGURE 5
Twelve Factors Used in Creating An Additive
Index Score of Gang Organizational Sophistication
Does your gang have a special language code, add one point.
Does your gang have written rules, add one point.
Does your gang have adult leaders who have been in the gang for many years, add one point.
Does your gang exist in several different geographical areas, add one point.
Does your gang have a private attorney that you use for defending your members in criminal
matters, add one point.
Does your gang keep an account that pays only for legal defense, add one point.
Does your gang hold regular meetings, add one point.
Does the gang you are in have a treasury, add one point.
Does your gang require members to pay regular dues, add one point.
Are the things your gang does approved by a higher up leader, add one point.
Does your gang keep a list of names of the members, add one point.
In your gang, can a member be "fined" for a mistake, add one point.
119
TABLE 15
Scale Scores in the Additive Index of
Gang Organizational Sophistication
Among Those With Gang Risk Categories of One or Higher
Scale Score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N
272
88
115
144
206
192
257
240
247
212
172
114
85
%
11.6
3.8
4.9
6.1
8.8
8.2
11.0
10.2
10.5
9.0
7.3
4.9
3.6
Gang Threat Classification
0 Level Zero
0
0
0_____Level Zero^
1 Level One
1
1_____Level One^
2 Level Two
2_____Level Two^
3 Level Three
3
3
3_____Level Three^
THE RELATIONSHIP OF GANG ORGANIZATIONAL COMPLEXITY TO LEVELS
OF GANG INVOLVEMENT
Table 16 provides our test here of the interaction of gang organizational complexity with
the levels of gang involvement examined earlier in this chapter. Recall that for the gang
member population we are looking at levels one through three in terms of gang involvement,
as a level zero would basically be a non-gang member.
Table 16 shows a very strong clustering effect in the distribution towards two polar
extremes.
The tendency is very pronounced in Table 16 for the less dangerous individual gang
members to cluster around the lower level organizationally sophisticated types of gangs. A
similar extreme tendency exists in the upper end of the gang-individual threat system: those
with the higher level individual gang involvement levels tend to be more highly concentrated
in more sophisticated gang types.
We believe we have helped to solve an important riddle in the gang research literature
120
here. While gang researchers have argued and debated, with little data we might add, about
whether American gangs are loose knit types of "near groups" or whether they are in some
cases complex formal organizations, the reality is what we have suggested all along in our
research: there is natural variation here. But this also helps to clarify a lot about the nature
of findings of gang threat in terms of individual behavior and in terms of what kinds of impact
are attributed to the gang. Table 16 shows, without any doubt, that it is the more
organizationally sophisticated type of gang that also has the more serious individual gang
members. We feel this has enormous implications for gang prevention and gang intervention
as will be discussed elsewhere in this report.
What Table 16 tells us is that gang research sampling strategies that only include the lower
end of the gang organizational sophistication spectrum are going, more likely than not, to pick
up lower levels of actual gang risk behavior as well. Similarly, the higher threat individual
gang member appears to be more associated with complex gang structures. A necessary
implication of this finding is that much prior research will have to be re-read to classify it
where possible for purposes of what kind of "gang" or "gang member" was being studied.
Obviously, one is not going to find large scale crack distribution systems studying an "Alfalfa
and Spanky" Level Zero type of gang is what our research would predict. Similarly, to speak
to the issue of gang violence, a researcher would have to examine gangs and gang members
across the spectrum as we have suggested here.
The good news is that the clustering may self-isolate gangs and gang members who are
most suitable for using limited resources like the correctional sanction. Similarly, it may
prove useful, depending on whether society is willing to think creatively in finding new
solutions to old problems, in new approaches to inducing massive gang defection from a
tertiary prevention strategy. In any case, any solution is going to take a very strong dose of
primary prevention, and we make no guarantees that crime and criminal behavior will cease
amongst the high gang threat/high individual gang behavior threat subgroup that may upon
closer analysis come to represent the real gang problem in America today.
TABLE 16
Frequency Distribution of The Level of Gang Organizational
Sophistication By the Levels (1-3) of Gang Risk Behavior
Levels of Individual Gang Risk Behavior
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
Levels of Gang
Organizational
Sophistication:
Level Zero
141
142
64
Level One
145
308
202
Level Two
66
212
209
Level Three
44
197
342
Chi-square = 256.8, p < .001
121
This chapter has examined gang involvement at the individual level in relationship to the
gang as a group or organizational structure using a large national sample of gang members.
It helps end debate about whether gangs are primarily loose-knit groups or highly organized
almost corporate style entities. The behavior included much that can happen in any context,
and a several variables looked at gang behavior behind bars. The research reported here
enjoyed one of the largest samples of confined gang members known in the literature to test
the value of a classification approach for dealing with security threat groups. By examining
the gang as a collective social entity it was possible in this research to identify a number of
factors in the nature of the group or organizational structure including its features and
capabilities that were significantly related to low or high gang risk behavior at the individual
level.
The profile that emerged here was that higher threat levels of individual gang behavior
were associated with the following features of more sophisticated gangs: using violence to
enforce internal rules; having a special language code; having written rules; having adult
leaders who have been in the gang for many years; being a gang that exists in several different
geographical areas; being a gang that arose due to exogenous formation (i.e., first arose by
contact with the same gang in another city); having a private attorney used for criminal
matters; having an account that pays for legal defense; having members from the same family
members in a gang; having a treasury; paying regular dues; being required to participate in
illegal activities before being considered a full member; having parents as members; parents
approving of gang membership; being a gang that knows each member's personal life; being
vertically structured gangs (i.e., the things the gang does are approved by a higher up); being
a gang that maintains a membership list; being able to fine a member; and having Asian
members.
Based on these findings a gang organizational scale was developed to examine the
variability in the extent of informality and formality in the gang. In otherwords, measuring
the level of sophistication in organizational capabilities in the gang world. A matrix was
developed examine gang organizational sophistication levels (0 through 3) in relationship to
individual risk behavior levels of known gang members (1 through 3).
A primary research finding here was that the interaction between gang structure and gang
behavior showed a strong clustering effect towards two polar extremes. One tendency was
for the less dangerous individual gang member to cluster around less sophisticated and less
complex social group formations. The other tendency was for the higher threat gang members
to be concentrated in more sophisticated types of gang structures.
TABLE 14
Findings About The Gang as a Social Group
or Social Organization Based on
Reports from a Gang Risk Analysis
Level of Gang Involvement
Have you ever joined a gang?
Percent YES
57.6 93.6
99.3
Chi-square = 575.3, p < .001
Are you currently a member of
any gang group or gang
organization?
Percent YES
18.6
68.9
122
94.0
Chi-square = 849.2, p < .001
Have you ever held rank or
any leadership position in
any gang?
Percent YES
25.9 63.4
Chi-square = 405.5, p <.001
80.5
TABLE 14: Continued
Have you ever been "violated"
(received a beating) by your
own gang for a "violation"?
Percent YES 25.1 42.9 51.8
Chi-square = 83.7, p < .001
Does your gang have a special
language code?
Chi-square = 137.9, p < .001
Does your gang have written
rules?
Chi-square = 92.2, p < .001
Does your gang have adult
leaders who have been in
the gang for many years?
Chi-square = 237.0, p < .001
Does your gang exist in
several different geographical
areas?
Chi-square = 53.5, p < .001
Did your gang first arise
by contact with the same
gang in another city?
Chi-square = 23.3, p < .001
Does your gang have a private
attorney that you use for
123
68.5
69.3
91.3
80.4
51.5
defending your members in
criminal matters?
Percent YES 20.3
30.5
Chi-square = 85.5, p < .001
45.9
TABLE 14: Continued
Does your gang keep an account
that pays only for legal
defense?
Percent YES 24.5 46.2 51.2
Chi-square = 80.7, p < .001
Does your gang hold regular
meetings?
Chi-square = 188.1, p < .001
Do you have family members
who are in a gang?
Percent YES
45.6 64.8
Chi-square = 252.2, p < .001
Does the gang you are in
have a treasury?
Percent YES
33.3 58.9
Chi-square = 134.5, p < .001
Does your gang require members
to pay regular dues.
Percent YES
25.7 43.4
Chi-square = 44.9, p < .001
In your gang, does a person
have to participate in an
illegal activity before the
person can become accepted
as a member of the gang?
Chi-square = 44.9, p < .001
In your gang, are there
members whose parents are
124
86.1
86.2
68.4
44.5
45.9
also active gang members?
Chi-square = 135.3, p < .001
In general, did your parents
approve or disapprove or your
own gang involvement?
Percent APPROVED 4.3
6.8
Chi-square = 31.9, p < .001
79.2
11.4
TABLE 14: Continued
In my gang, each member's
personal life is known to
other members.
Percent TRUE 37.0 46.8 56.3
Chi-square = 39.6, p < .001
In my gang, the things the
gang does are approved by a
higher up leader.
Percent TRUE 52.7 61.3
Chi-square = 17.6, p < .001
In my gang, the gang keeps
a list of names of the members.
Chi-square = 23.8, p < .001
In my gang, a member can be
"fined" for a mistake.
Chi-square = 37.4, p < .001
Are there any Asian members
in your gang?
Percent YES 36.4
46.1
Chi-square = 16.0, p < .001
When there is intense news
coverage of your gang, what
effect does this have on
your gang?
% MORE MEMBERS GET INVOLVED 54.7
% FEWER MEMBERS GET INVOLVED 45.3
Chi-square = 19.3, p < .001
When there is intense news
coverage of your gang, what
125
65.6
55.5
63.0
48.9
70.3
29.7
76.2
23.8
effect does this have on
your gang?
% MORE NEW MEMBERS JOIN 58.5 72.3
% FEWER NEW MEMBERS JOIN 41.5 27.7
Chi-square = 26.7, p < .001
84.0
16.0
TABLE 14: Continued
Would you quit gang life if
you had the chance to get
married, get a good steady
job, and live somewhere
else?
Percent YES 80.4
73.7
66.5
Chi-square = 23.5, p < .001
126
Chapter 7
SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION LEVELS AMONG YOUTHS
IN RELATIONSHIP TO GANG RISK FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
An unresolved philosophical issue pivots around the problem of triage in the allocation
of scarce resources such as those represented by our Nation's social service industry. Simply
put there is now, as probably has always been the case, more problem cases deserving of help
and assistance than there are sufficient helping professionals with resources to allocate to the
needy. In the arena of gang problems the triage issue also appears if a threat analysis suggests
greater bang for the buck in terms of resource allocation at the lower end of the gang risk
spectrum. Expressed somewhat differently, any recommendation to focus national policy with
a predominant emphasis on pure primary prevention, with less emphasis on secondary
prevention, and much less emphasis if at all on tertiary intervention, basically boils down to
a triage decision based on the risk-benefit decision tree.
Another issue complicating a national needs assessment on gang prevention is the notion
that to some extent it may be argued that the social service experience history among modern
youths can also be a surrogate measure of the extent to which social control agencies have
focused on the same youths. In an earlier section of this report we found, for example, that
in regard to some types of prevention and intervention services: gang members have benefited
more from these services than their non-gang member counterparts in the youth population.
This chapter will explore some of the implications of this issue.
DEVELOPING A SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION SCALE
The analytical question we had was measuring the extent to which a person had been the
consumer of social services, the likes of which are designed to be preventative in nature, or
at least commonly used in delinquency and gang prevention and intervention. The idea here
was simple: developing a scale score or index that reflects the natural variation in social
service experiences. That is, there is a need to have a measure of the extent to which a person
has had the benefit of an assortment of social service resources commonly available in
American society.
Our methodology was that of developing an additive index based on a variety of separate
forced choice questions. For purposes of an additive index we are not examining the intensity
of the consumption, but rather the extent of the general consumption of available prevention
services. It is important at this point to mention that the time ordering inference is also not
made here, as it cannot from the present data be determined if the services are a cause or
127
response to the extent of gang behavior. Rather the issue here is much simpler and elementary
in nature: taking a look at the overall variation in the scope and extent of social service
consumption.
The index developed used twelve different variables and therefore had a logical range
of scores between a low of zero for no such social service consumption to a high of 12 for the
highest level of social service consumption. The social service consumption index therefore
tends to measure the extent to which these youths have had the benefit of a vast array of social
services. The twelve types of social services included: having used a hotline service; having
had court-mandated psychological counseling or therapy; having been involved in grouptherapy; have had a one-on-one professional tutor; having been in a drug/substance abuse
counseling program; having ever been in a job skills program; having ever been in a job
training program; having ever had parents active in the PTA at their school; having been
involved in any counseling program court-mandated or not; having ever been in a big
brother/big sister program; having ever been in the YMCA recreational program; and having
ever completed the DARE anti-drug abuse program.
Table 15 shows the distribution of index scale scores for our entire sample in this study.
TABLE 15
FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF
SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION INDEX SCORES
IN A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF YOUTHS
THAT INCLUDES A LARGE NUMBER OF KNOWN GANG MEMBERS
Index
Score
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
N
282
233
353
373
422
477
442
334
217
121
54
30
10
%
8.4
7.0
10.5
11.1
12.6
14.2
13.2
10.0
6.5
3.6
1.6
.9
.3
As seen in Table 15, there is great variation in the extent to which these respondents have
had or have not had the benefit of twelve different delinquency prevention services. While
not all respondents in our sample are gang members, we have very few who are without any
delinquency experience in this sample. Thus, the value of looking at social service
consumption levels is worthwhile here in as much as these are program service components
that are often used in delinquency as well as gang prevention programs.
Our approach to analyzing this issue of individual social service experience history or the
128
scope of social service consumption can now proceed to differentiation. A close inspection
of the distribution of the social service consumption index scores in Table 12 shows much
variability. Someone scoring zero on this index is someone who has not reported being the
beneficiary of any of twelve different types of social service intervention. Someone with an
index score of "12", on the other hand, is someone who has literally had the benefit of almost
every social service arrangement that society has to offer.
By using this natural variation that is shown to exist in Table 15, it can be seen that
almost half (49.7%) have an index score of "4 or less". Thus, we created two categories: low
and high levels of social service consumption, based on this distribution. Those classified as
having a low level of social service consumption were those with index scores from zero to
4. Those classified as having a high level of social service consumption were those with
index scores ranging from 5 to 12. This basically divides the sample in half.
A LOOK AT GANG MEMBERS ONLY
Here we will examine only that subset of the overall sample that are self-reported gang
members. This means the question "have you ever joined a gang" was answered yes by the
respondent. By using the social service consumption variable (low/high) it is now possible
to more directly answer the question: have certain types of gang members enjoyed more or
less such prevention resources. It is also possible to examine gang member behavior
differences in relationship to this measure of social service consumption levels.
Table 16 provides some of these important findings in this regard. First of all, one
consistent trend is noted among this sample of self-reported gang members: those with more
serious gang conduct have also generally had a higher level of social service consumption.
We are not prepared to speak to the causality issue here of which came first: the threatening
behavior or the social services. One possibility that cannot be ruled out here is that the levels
of social service consumption are actually social control responses to threatening gang
behavior.
We must as criminologists be very careful in our recommendations of responses to gang
behavior, for gang history shows that some things can in fact contribution to greater gang
cohesion and larger membership in the gang --- this was true when Chicago's Rev. John Fry
tried to coopt what was then a small gang, making the gang leaders administrators of a heavily
funded program, only to find the gang leaders were able to manipulate the program funding
to build their weapons arsenals and expand their gang organizations. More recently some
criminologists in the gang specialization field have hypothesized that a law enforcement focus
on the gang as a group might add to cohesion and membership rather than reduce the problem.
This argument could, logically, be extended to social services as a social control response.
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION OF GANG MEMBERSHIP BEHAVIOR FACTORS BY
LEVELS OF SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION
AMONG A NATIONAL SAMPLE OF GANG MEMBERS
Social Service
Consumption Levels
(N) LOW (N) HIGH (%) High
Have you ever held rank or any
leadership position in any gang?
NO 346
315
47.6
YES 540
702
56.5
129
Chi-square = 13.6, p < .001
Have you ever been "violated"
(received a beating) by your
own gang for a "violation".
NO 525
478
47.6
YES 332
467
58.4
Chi-square = 20.7, p < .001
Table 16 Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
Have you ever fired a gun
at anyone because they were
threatening the drug business
of your gang?
NO 442
396
47.2
YES 375
516
57.9
Chi-square = 19.6, p < .001
Have you ever fired a gun at
someone because you were
defending your "turf"?
NO 306
302
49.6
YES 559
686
55.1
Chi-square = 4.83, p = .02
Have you ever been a shooter
in a drive-by shooting?
NO 468
452
49.1
YES 399
540
57.5
Chi-square = 13.1, p <.001
Are you willing to die for
your gang friends?
NO 428
434
50.3
YES 388
501
56.3
Chi-square = 6.34, p = .01
This report does not evaluate these reaction formation issues here. Rather our focus here
is a different question entirely, and revolves around the much simpler question of does
variation exist by gang threat behavior and the response of society in the form of social
service experiences.
It appears there are some differences, although small. Table 16 shows there is a slight
tendency for the more hard core gang member to have had the benefit of a higher level of
social service consumption.
Anyone who has held a position of leadership in the gang, for example, shows a higher
level of social service consumption than a gang member who has never held rank. Mostly,
the experiences with violence among gang members are the variables in Table 16 that suggest
130
differences in social service consumption. The greater the violence proneness of the gang
member, or the higher the violence experiences of the gang member, the more likely the same
gang members are to have had a higher level of social service consumption. Again, we cannot
rule out the possibility that what we are measuring here in social service consumption levels
is not actually a social control response from society to this threatening behavior.
In summary, it may be worthwhile to examine gang risk behavior in relationship to social
service consumption levels. All we have done here is examine these levels in a known
subpopulation of gang members. The differences that emerged were suggestive, and justify
examining the larger sample that includes non-gang members as well.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION AND
RISK/THREAT BEHAVIORS IN THE CORRECTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
In this section of the analysis we examine the entire sample that includes gang members
and non-gang members. The questions included in Table 17 were available only to those
respondents who were studied inside correctional environments. Recall that we used two
versions of the survey instrument in this research project. A slightly longer form of the
instrument was used for those surveyed in correctional environments, in order to empirically
examine risk and threat behavior. Obviously, in this analysis we are including all in the
sample who provided data from some form of custody. So the analysis reported in this section
includes gang members and non-gang members alike, but is limited to those in our national
sample who were in some form of correctional facility (i.e., the institution was their
residence). Typically this meant short or long term juvenile correctional institutions.
The trend that emerges in Table 17 is very consistent and very clear: higher threatening
behavior is associated with a higher level of social service consumption. In fact, the more
serious the violence, the stronger the nature of this relationship. One might be tempted to
want to assume that social services were therefore an experience reserved as a social control
reaction to threat, rather than being used as a systematic mechanism to prevent the threat or
risk behavior in the first place. Some authors of this report are certainly aware of the vast
discrepancy that exists between the current federal government approach to gang prevention
(i.e., in terms of what gets funded, and what gets cited as an "exemplary program", etc) and
what gang members actually say might work.
If what we have in the national picture of gang prevention and intervention is really social
control in reaction to existing gang problems, then what we also have is a misplaced and
illogical emphasis that lacks a coherent and theoretically based strategy. In otherwords, is
persons get social services only when they manifest the threatening behavior, we are not
talking primary prevention nor secondary prevention, we are dealing with tertiary intervention
or rehabilitation.
In one sense it is not necessarily untrue that the more deviant and disruptive one is the
more social service benefits one receives, at least this is suggested from Table 17. We are not
prepared to interpret this as evidence that gang threat behavior is being systematically
reinforced or accelerated by society's response in terms of social services. However, we are
very fascinated with the trend that has developed in this national study. For it may add
additional support for the need to drastically restructure publicly funded initiatives in the area
of gang prevention.
To recap, in examining the levels of social service consumption in our national sample
of confined youths, those with the more disruptive behavior behind bars are those with higher
levels of benefiting from social services. Again, we cannot from our present data ascertain
time-ordering or causality, although the trend is very suggestive. What Table 17 actually tells
us is this: among the confined those with greater behavior problems that are threatening to
131
the institution (having had privileges taken away, having been in physical fights, having
threatened someone, having carried an improvised weapon, having threatened staff members,
starting a fight, trying to smuggle in illegal drugs, etc) are those who also consistently report
higher levels of social service consumption. In fact, the more disciplinary reports these youths
received, as seen in Table 17, the higher their social service experiences as well. Social
services used as a disciplinary function are not social services in a prevention function is all
we would like to point out here.
Some would say that these findings are as they should be: those presenting problems
need more services. These are, after all, primarily youths in our sample. So the greater the
problem, the greater the services they need. If we look at it from this viewpoint, they we
simply have additional evidence of the validity of our data generally. Because there are some
remarkably consistent findings in this regard.
This chapter began by examining the subgroup of those who were self-reported gang
members and this finding held. In this section we looked at the subpopulation in custody to
see that additional evidence accrued. We will now turn to the entire sample for additional
analysis.
TABLE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF THREAT FACTORS IN THE CORRECTIONAL
ENVIRONMENT THAT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATE
LOW AND HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION
Social Service
Consumption Levels
Have you had any "privileges"
removed or taken away while
in this facility? NO
413
325
44.0
YES
541
726
57.3
Chi-square = 32.8, p < .001
fight with anyone in this
facility?
NO
580
519
47.2
YES
418
579
58.0
Chi-square = 24.6, p < .001
with violence in this facility?
NO
624
529
45.8
YES
373
563
60.1
Chi-square = 42.1, p < .001
weapon (knife, etc) in this
facility?
NO
794
770
49.2
YES
177
301
62.9
Chi-square = 37.7, p < .001
132
NO
825 741
47.3
YES
167 346
67.4
Chi-square = 62.7, p < .001
Table 17: Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
How many "disciplinary"
reports have you had while in
this facility? NONE
366
281
43.4
ONE
118
124
51.2
TWO
78
86
52.4
THREE
79
88
52.6
FOUR
68
81
54.3
>= FIVE 195
330
62.8
Chi-square = 44.2, p < .001
Did you start a fight or
attack someone while in
this facility?
NO
700
622
47.0
YES
288
464
61.2
Chi-square = 41.2, p < .001
Have you tried to smuggle
in any illegal drugs while
in this facility? NO
814
824
50.3
YES
177
262
59.6
Chi-square = 12.1, p <.001
FACTORS DIFFERENTIATING LOW AND HIGH LEVELS OF SOCIAL SERVICE
CONSUMPTION IN THE ENTIRE SAMPLE
Here we take the largest view of the data possible, and examine the social service
consumption variable in the entire national sample of gang members and non-gang members
alike, regardless of whether they were interviewed in or out of custodial environments.
Summarized here, then, are those factors that are differentiated by this condition of low or
high levels of social service consumption. Table 18 presents these results.
These findings will now be briefly summarized.
The Higher the Gang Behavior Threat Level, the Higher The Service Consumption
133
Table 18 uses the gang involvement index described in a previous chapter. At the lowest
level of gang risk 43 percent were in the high level of social service consumption, compared
to 57.7 percent at the highest level of gang involvement. Another way of interpreting this
finding is gang members consume more social services the higher up they go in the gang risk
continuum.
Hopeful News: Those With Higher Social Service Consumption Are More Optimistic
About Gang Prevention
Those who were in the higher level of social service consumption were more likely
(53.5%) to believe gang prevention programs can be effective in preventing persons from
joining gangs. Those with lower levels of service consumption were less likely (46.7%) to
be optimistic about gang prevention.
Being Bullied Has Higher Service Consumption Level
Ever being "bullied" in school is shown in Table 18 to be associated with a higher level
of service consumption. Some 58.8 percent of those bullied in school had high levels of
social service consumption, compared to 45.4 percent for the others.
TABLE 18
FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATING
SOCIAL SERVICE CONSUMPTION LEVELS
IN A LARGE NATIONAL SAMPLE
Social Service
Consumption Levels
Level of Gang Behavior Risk:
(LOW)
Level Zero
572
432
43.0
(MEDIUM-LOW) Level One
329
315
48.9
(MEDIUM-HIGH) Level Two
415
463
52.7
(HIGH)
Level Three
347
475
57.7
Chi-square = 42.2, p < .001
joining a gang?
NO
783
688
YES
836
962
Chi-square = 14.6, p < .001
46.7
53.5
Were you ever "bullied" by
anyone in school?
NO
1044
870
YES
557
796
Chi-square = 56.7, p < .001
45.4
58.8
Did you every "bully" someone
in school?
NO
793
565
YES
795
1097
Chi-square = 84.8, p < .001
41.6
57.9
134
Have you received a high school
degree or G.E.D. degree? NO
1341
1335
YES
205
301
Chi-square = 15.6, p < .001
49.8
59.4
Table 18: Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
Have you ever completed any
religious training by a church,
synagogue, or mosque? NO 1027
843
45.0
YES 414
656
61.3
Chi-square = 71.7, p < .001
Have you ever been demoted
in school?
NO
904
844
YES
609
794
Chi-square = 21.5, p <.001
How would you describe your
race/ethnicity?
African-American or Black 720
682
Asian or Chinese 98
70
American Indian or
Native American
46
74
Mexican
271
170
Puerto Rican
50
38
White or caucasian 222
391
Other
60
82
Chi-square = 86.4, p < .001
Do you think social workers can
be effective in reaching out to
persons who might want to
quit the gang?
NO 694
568
YES 848
1058
Chi-square = 33.5, p < .001
NO 738
YES 780
645
945
48.2
56.5
48.6
41.6
61.6
38.5
43.1
63.7
57.7
45.0
55.5
46.6
54.7
135
Chi-square = 20.3, p <.001
Do you feel that when gangs
are seen in T.V. news reports
that this makes people want
to join gangs?
NO 905
854
48.5
YES 629
758
54.6
Chi-square = 11.5, p = .001
Table 18: Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
Do you feel that gang members
like seeing themselves on
the news?
NO 574
460
44.4
YES 958
1161
54.7
Chi-square = 29.5, p < .001
like seeing themselves in
the newspapers?
NO 577
472
YES 936
1130
Chi-square = 26.2, p < .001
would like being part of a
"study" where an important
professor might be willing
to hang out with them
in the hood?
NO 861
792
YES 658
810
Chi-square 16.4, p < .001
attention was given to gangs
on television, in newspapers
and in movies that fewer
people would join gangs?
NO
905
810
YES 634
815
Chi-square = 25.5, p < .001
When a school teacher or
principal "negotiates" with
a gang member, does this
encourage more gang activity?
NO
908
803
136
44.9
54.6
47.9
55.1
47.2
56.2
46.9
YES
612
781
Chi-square = 25.6, p < .001
56.0
Table 18: Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
(N) LOW (N) HIGH
(%) High
Do you feel that if parents
cannot keep their children
out of gangs, the children
should be taken away
from the parents?
NO
1264
1243
YES
283
385
Chi-square = 13.6, p < .001
Do you feel that some parents
benefit financially from having
a child who is a gang member?
NO
943
879
YES 573
719
Chi-square = 16.5, p < .001
family been killed because
of gang trouble?
NO
760
634
YES
793
990
Chi-square = 31.5, p < .001
to be in a gang?
NO
1392
1339
YES
153
287
Chi-square = 39.7, p < .001
Do you think anyone in your
family uses drugs or drinks
too much?
NO
765
613
YES
789
1022
Chi-square = 44.7, p < .001
137
49.5
57.6
48.2
55.6
45.4
55.5
49.0
65.2
44.4
56.4
Table 18: Continued
Social Service
Consumption Levels
(N) LOW (N) HIGH
What is the ONE best kind of
program you think is most
effective in getting young
people to stay out of gangs?
EMPLOYMENT
538
491
COUNSELING PROGRAMS
125
165
LIVE-IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS
WITH COUNSELING & EDUCATION 248
349
VOCATIONAL/EDUCATIONALPROGRAM
148
139
SOCIAL WORKER WHO WORKS WITH
YOUTHS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
274
271
Chi-square = 22.6, p < .001
Have you ever been expelled
from school?
NO
721
YES 806
Chi-square = 34.9, p < .001
600
1029
(%) High
47.7
56.8
58.4
48.4
49.7
45.4
56.0
Being A Bully is Also Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Some 57.9 percent of those who were bullies in school had higher levels of social service
consumption, compared to 41.6 percent of those who had not been a bully in school.
Completing Educational Credentials is Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Some 59.4 percent of those who had received a high school degree or G.E.D. had high
levels of social service consumption, compared to 49.8 percent for those who had not
achieved these educational credentials.
Strong Relationship: Religious Training is Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Some 61.3 percent of those who have completed any religious training had high levels of
social service consumption, compared to 45 percent of those without such religious training.
Being Demoted in School is Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Some 56.5 percent of those who had been demoted in school had higher levels of social
service consumption, compared to 48.2 percent for those who had not been demoted in school.
138
Higher Service Consumption Levels Vary With Race: Whites Get The Most, Mexicans
Get the Least
Some 63.7 percent of the whites in this sample had higher levels of social service
consumption, compared to only 38.5 percent for Mexicans. African-Americans or Blacks
showed 48.6 percent in the high social service consumption level.
Belief That Social Workers Can Be Effective is Associated With Higher Service
Consumption
Some 55.5 percent of those who believed social workers can be effective in reaching out
to persons who might want to quit the gang were in the higher level of social service
consumption, compared to 45 percent for those who did not accept this belief.
Similarly, 54.7 percent of those who thought social workers can be effective in helping
kids stay out of gangs had higher levels of social service consumption, compared to 46.6
percent for those who did not share this view about social workers.
A Number of Mass Media "Contagion Effect" Variables Are Associated With Higher
Service Consumption
Four different variables about the potential negative impact of mass media coverage of
gangs and gang members were all associated with higher levels of social service consumption:
those who believed in the contagion effect had the higher service consumption levels. This
included: television coverage increasing gang membership, gang members enjoying news
coverage or seeing themselves in the newspapers, and whether less such coverage would
result in fewer persons joining gangs.
Somewhat related was the finding about beliefs of whether gang members would like
having an ethnographer or participant observer hanging around with them, those with higher
social service consumption felt this would be more feasible.
Similarly, those with higher social service consumption levels were also more likely to
view as negative the situation of a principal negotiating with a gang member.
Several Family Factors Are Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Table 18 shows that those with a higher social service consumption level were more likely
to believe that if parents cannot keep their children out of gangs that the children should be
taken away from the parents. Similarly, those with higher social service consumption were
more likely to believe that some parents benefit financially from having a child who is a gang
member. Those with higher social service consumption were also more likely to report having
friends or family killed because of gang trouble. Those with higher social service
consumption were also more likely to want their own children to be in a gang, and to report
substance abuse in their family.
Program Preferences For Primary Gang Prevention
Table 18 also shows the question about program preferences for effectively keeping kids
out of gangs also varies by the social service consumption variable.
Being Expelled From School is Associated With Higher Service Consumption
Some 56 percent of those with high service consumption had been expelled from school
compared to 45.4 percent of those who had not been expelled from school.
139
Everyone is familiar with the expression "the wheel that squeaks is the wheel that gets
the grease", implying one needs to speak up to get attention. In another variation on this
theme, it is not untrue to also say "the hand that does harm is often as well more likely to
receive a hand out from social services". Clearly, in the correctional context those who
caused the most problems were those with the higher level of social service consumption: but
we also pointed out that we cannot categorically state that the services came before or after
the bad behavior. The critical issue here, one we cannot resolve with our present data, is
whether this amounts to reinforcing or rewarding bad behavior. There are findings in this
chapter that would certainly suggest the most risky individuals get the most social services and
perhaps the higher level of social service consumption is associated with a kind of "softening
up".
However, there are also some troubling findings in this chapter as well. One of these was
the fact that race varied by low or high levels of social service consumption, where whites had
the highest representation in the higher level of social service consumption and Mexicans had
the lowest level of representation in the higher level of social service consumption. The fact
that substantial differences also existed favoring whites over African-Americans, who fared
slightly better than Mexicans, might suggest that race and language interact as barriers to the
delivery of such services. It is certainly a factor worthy of additional investigation.
140
Chapter 8
Factors Differentiating Female Gang Members
INTRODUCTION
Females constitute a small proportion of our overall national sample to the same extent
that females represent a small percentage of the overall correctional population. The
researchers in the present project do, however, recognize that there is a genuine need to have
more knowledge about the female gang member. This chapter therefore adds to our
understanding of the female gang member population with an emphasis on gang prevention
and gang intervention. Because our data also speaks to the issue of female gang member
behavior inside correctional institutions (fights, threats, carrying improvised weapons,
smuggling drugs, etc), we believe it will be useful to further examine the beliefs, background
experiences, and behavior of the female gang member.
COMPARING FEMALE GANG MEMBERS WITH FEMALE NON-GANG
MEMBERS
A sufficiently large sample of female respondents exist in our national sample to allow
comparisons along the dimension of gang membership. This section will therefore present
those factors which were significantly different among females in comparing gang members
and non-gang members. Of particular value in the validity of this kind of comparison for this
sample is the fact that no significant differences existed comparing female gang members and
female non-gang members on other demographic variables.
What this section describes, therefore, are those significant differences in behavior and
beliefs that do emerge when we compare female gang members with their non-gang member
female counterparts in the same troubled environments.
The operational definition of gang membership used here is the basic self-report question:
"have you ever joined a gang?".
The discussion of findings that follows are based on the results reported in Table 19. This
is a large reference table and is found at the end of this chapter.
Female Gang Members Are More Skeptical About Gang Prevention Programs
Several different variables show a consistent significant trend towards greater skepticism
among female gang members about the potential effectiveness of gang prevention programs.
In this respect, female gang members share a commonality with the larger predominantly male
gang member sample as well, which was previously documented in this report. In otherwords,
there is not disparity here in this respect between male gang members and female gang
members; rather there is convergence: both males and females alike who are gang members
have a more fatalistic outlook is the finding that seems to emerge here.
The survey asked "do you think that programs can be effective in preventing kids from
141
getting involved in gangs". Some 64.2 percent of the non-gang member females felt such
programs could be effective compared to only 47.1 percent of the female gang members.
The survey also asked "do you think gang prevention programs can be effective in
preventing persons from joining a gang". Again, some 60.7 percent of the non-gang member
females felt programs could prevent persons from joining a gang. However, only 43.6 percent
of the female gang members felt such programs could be effective.
The survey asked the respondents to agree/disagree with the statement "I feel that gang
problems can be prevented by school education". Examining the distribution in Table 19
shows that some 36.6 percent of the non-gang member females agreed or strongly agreed with
this idea. However, only 23.4 percent of the female gang members felt that gang problems
can be prevented by school education.
Another question along these lines asked the females to agree/disagree with the statement
"I feel that gang problems can be prevented by means of effective drug prevention and drug
education". Examining the distribution in Table 19 shows that some 37.2 percent of the nongang members agreed or strongly agreed. However, only 25.9 percent of the gang members
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.
Another Significant Difference: The Role of Law Enforcement
The survey also asked the respondents to agree/disagree with the statement "I feel that
strict law enforcement is the best solution to the gang problem". Examining the distribution
in Table 19 shows that 36.1 percent of the non-gang member females agreed or strongly
agreed with this statement, compared to only 22.6 percent among female gang members.
Female Gang Members Are More Likely To View Education and Counseling In
Secondary Prevention Efforts As A Waste of Time
The survey asked the respondents to agree or disagree with the statement "for kids at risk
of joining a gang, getting involved in educational programs is a waste of time". Some 24.8
percent of the non-gang member females agreed with this assessment. However, a much
larger percentage (38.5%) emerged among the female gang members in viewing such
secondary prevention efforts as a waste of time.
A second and similar question but focused on counseling asked the respondents to agree
or disagree with the statement "for kids at risk of joining a gang, getting involved in
counseling programs is a waste of time". Here again, the same trend emerged. Among the
non-gang member females, about a fourth (25.5%) agreed that counseling would be a waste
of time for kids at risk of joining a gang. However, Table 19 also shows that some 38.6
percent of the female gang members viewed counseling programs as a waste of time for kids
at risk of joining a gang.
Thus, in terms of skepticism towards gang prevention programs, there is substantial
evidence of commonality in the views and beliefs of male and female gang members it would
seem.
Female Gang Members Fit the Profile of Male Gang Members in Being More Likely to
Have Engaged in Bullying Behavior While in School
Here we see a behavioral commonality that female gang members have with their male
gang member counterparts. The survey asked "did you ever bully someone in school". Some
74.3 percent of the female gang members reported engaging in this bullying behavior,
compared to only 44.5 percent of their non-gang member female counterparts. This is a very
significant difference.
142
Female Gang Members More Likely to Have Been in Court-Mandated Psychological
Counseling or Therapy
This was, the reader will recall, a finding shown to be true of the larger predominantly
male sample. Thus, here again we find a profile factor for female gang members that is
consistent with the male gang members as well. Some 59.3 percent of the female gang
members reported having ever been in court-mandated psychological counseling or therapy
compared to only 43.8 percent of the female non-gang members.
Female Gang Members Less Likely to Report Parents Active in PTA
The survey asked "were or are your parents ever active in the PTA". Here the non-gang
member females showed a higher percentage of parents active in the PTA (39.6%). The
female gang members were somewhat less likely (29.2%) to report parents active in the PTA.
Female Gang Members Put Less Faith In "Boot Camps" As A Gang Deprogramming
Tool
The survey asked "do you think a boot camp could influence some people to get out of a
gang". It is the non-gang member that is more likely to believe boot camps could be effective
in this capacity of severing ties to the gang (50.5%). Female gang members were less likely
(39.7%) to believe boot camps could be effective in this capacity.
Female Gang Members Show Less Educational Achievement Than Their Non-Gang
Member Counterparts
The survey asked "have you received a high school degree or G.E.D. certificate". This
measure of educational achievement did significantly differentiate female gang members from
female non-gang members. Some 19 percent of the non-gang members reported having such
educational achievement credentials, compared to only 9.2 percent of the female gang
members.
Like Male Gang Members, Female Gang Members Are More Likely to Have a
Permanent Tattoo
This profile factor is documented in other research, but appears here again as well. It is
a substantial difference. While some 36.5 percent of the non-gang members among the
females had such permanent tattoos, this almost doubles (66.2%) for female gang members.
Having a permanent tattoo, then, remains a common profile factor for both male and female
gang membership.
Female Gang Members More Likely to Be Possessed With the Belief of Their Own
Damnation
The survey used a somewhat unique measure about religiosity. The survey asked "Assume
there is a God. So if you died right now, where would you go? __To Hell __To Heaven".
Three-fourths (78.1%) of the female non-gang members felt they would go to Heaven.
However, only two-thirds (66.2%) of the female gang members thought they would go to
Heaven. Thus, female gang members are more likely to manifest a religious belief about their
own damnation.
Female Gang Members Attribute Less Effectiveness to Social Workers in Gang
Intervention and Prevention
Two somewhat related but separate questions yielded a similar pattern: female gang
members are more skeptical about the effectiveness of social workers in a gang
143
prevention/intervention role. Some 64.6 percent of the female non-gang members felt that
social workers can be effective in reaching out to persons who might want to quit the gang,
compared to only 53.5 percent of the female gang members. Similarly, some 60.2 percent of
the non-gang member females felt that social workers can be effective in helping kids to stay
out of gangs, compared to only 46.1 percent of the female gang members.
Female Gang Members Are Less Likely To Blame the Media
Whether it is called the "contagion effect", or desensitization, some people would like to
blame the media for the spread of gangs or the escalation of gang problems. If we listen to
the female gang member, changing media coverage about gang life would not likely result in
fewer people getting involved in gangs. The survey asked "do you feel that if less attention
was given to gangs on television, in newspapers, and in movies that fewer people would join
gangs". Half (50%) of the female non-gang members felt that reducing media coverage would
reduce new gang recruits. However, only 38.1 percent of the female gang members felt that
reducing media coverage would reduce gang recruits. In otherwords, females actually
involved in gang life are less likely to attribute blame to the media than are non-gang
members.
Female Gang Members Are Much More Likely To Have Had Friends or Family Killed
in Gang Violence
Early childhood experiences with gang trauma were shown to be common for gang
members in an earlier section of this report examining the human development sequence.
Apparently female gang members also experience this kind of violent trauma, not unlike that
of a new kind of violent civil war, one fought from block to block, where the new MasonDixie line is any street or avenue that divides one neighborhood from the next in American
cities today. The survey asked "have any of your friends or family been killed because of
gang trouble". The results show that 46.1 percent of the non-gang member females reported
experiencing such gang violence trauma, compared to 78.5 percent for the female gang
members.
A Fifth of the Female Gang Members Want Their Own Children To Be in a Gang
Another troubling finding is evident in Table 19, and this should be coupled with
previous research showing that female gang members at a young age also tend to have higher
fertility rates, again because of higher health risk behaviors. The survey asked "do you want
your children to be in a gang". Some 19.7 percent of the female gang members reported that
they did in fact want their children to be in a gang. Perhaps the good news here is the fact that
four-fifths would not want their own children to be in a gang.
The validity of this finding is evidenced by a much differently worded item in the survey
located several pages away in the item order of the survey. This second question basically
measured the same thing and produced identical results. The second question asked "if you
have or plan to have children, would you encourage them or discourage them from joining a
gang". Again, a fifth (21.8%) of the female gang members would encourage their children
to be gang members.
Female Gang Members Are More Likely to Report Coming From a Family With
Substance Abuse Problems
The survey asked "do you think anyone in your family uses drugs or drinks too much".
Table 19 shows a substantial difference in this regard of comparing female gang members
144
with female non-gang members. Some 56.5 percent of the female non-gang members
reported this condition of a family with a substance abuse problem, compared to 74 percent
among the female gang members.
Female Gang Members Were More, Not Less, Likely to Report Having Had A Good
Relationship With An Adult Who Tried to Steer Them Away From Gang Life
We have found a number of fascinating and sometimes perplexing results in this study of
gang prevention and gang intervention. The present finding is one of those. Gang members
do not appear to have basically "fallen through the cracks" of the social service apparatus of
American society, with some notable exceptions when we look at this issue from a
consumption level point of view discussed in the previous chapter (i.e., the possible
interaction effect of racial discrimination with linguistic exclusion resulting in less service
options for Mexican American youths). The issue here is that female gang members have had
more not less of a chance to interact with an adult to tried to steer them away from gang life:
it just did not work apparently.
Table 19 shows that while some 61.9 percent of the non-gang member females report
having had a good relationship with an adult who tried to prevent them from getting involved
with gangs, that this rises to 76.9 percent among actual female gang members.
Like Male Gang Members: The Female Gang Member Includes A Greater Likelihood
of School Failure
The survey asked "have you ever been suspended from school". Table 19 shows that
while high among non-gang members in this sample of troubled teens (77.7%), it gets even
higher (90.5%) among female gang members to the point where not being suspended is the
exception to the rule.
The difference in school failure is more acute when we examine the powerful stigma and
label of failure/incorrigibility that comes with being "expelled" from school. The survey
asked "have you ever been expelled from school". Here some 40.2 percent of the female nongang members reported being expelled from school. However, over two-thirds (69.5%) of
the female gang members report this early developmental experience of being expelled from
school.
Another Commonality Between Male and Female Gang Members: Threat Behavior
Behind Bars
Five different factors are listed at the end of Table 19 that apply to a subset of females who
were surveyed inside correctional institutions. These variables measure disruptive and
threatening behavior. In all instances, female gang members manifest a significantly greater
problem than do their non-gang member counterparts. This includes: fighting behavior,
threats of violence, carrying improvised weapons, threatening facility staff, and trying to
smuggle illegal drugs into the correctional facility.
The survey asked "have you been in a physical fight with anyone in this facility". Clearly,
female gang members are about twice as assaultive is what Table 19 suggests. Some 22.8
percent of the female non-gang members had been in a fight compared to half (49.2%) of the
female gang members.
The survey asked "have you threatened anyone with violence in this facility". Again, a
very significant difference emerges here. While only 17.3 percent of the female non-gang
members in custody reported making threats of violence while in custody, half (50%) of the
female gang members had made such threats.
The survey asked "have you carried a homemade weapon (knife, etc) in this facility". Here
as well we see that female gang members are twice as likely to report carrying an improvised
145
weapon. Some 14.2 percent of the non-gang members reported carrying an improvised
weapon, however some 28.3 percent of the female gang members reported such behavior.
Here again we see that the female gang member shares this aspect of behavior with male gang
members in having a higher probability of being a disruptive or threatening figure inside the
correctional institution. Some 12.6 percent of the female non-gang members had threatened
facility staff, compared to a third (33.3%) of the female gang members.
Finally, the same trend appears in attempts to smuggle illegal drugs into the correctional
institution. The survey asked "have you tried to smuggle in any illegal drugs while in this
facility". Some 11.7 percent of the female non-gang members reported having attempted to
smuggle in illegal drugs into the correctional institution, compared to a fourth (26.7%) of the
female gang members.
This chapter has examined the female subset of the overall national sample to make
comparisons along the lines of self-reported gang membership. This comparison of female
gang members with female non-gang members produced results that are remarkably similar
to findings from some previous research on female gang members. Still, by the nature of the
type of focus in the present research, some new and additional insights have been developed
as well on the female gang member.
First and foremost among the findings of this chapter is that the female gang member
shares profile traits of the male gang member. This includes a strong, perhaps somewhat
fervent, skepticism about the efficacy of gang prevention and intervention efforts generally.
This includes health risk behaviors, such as having permanent tattoos, engaging in fighting
behavior, experiences with gang violence trauma, etc. This includes, most importantly, the
fact the female gang members inside correctional institutions are comparable to their male
gang member counterparts behind bars in reporting significantly more threatening and
disruptive behavior while in custody.
Secondly, consistent with much previous research on the issue, female gang membership
manifests another profile factor that is common as well to male gang members: school failure.
This includes a lower rate of achieving academic credentials and a higher rate of experiencing
school suspensions as well as being expelled from school.
Thirdly, female gang members like their male counterparts in the gang, appear to have not
been neglected by their society in terms of gang prevention and gang intervention services.
Like their male counterparts in the gang, females tend to report having been more likely to
have received court-mandated psychological counseling or therapy. Further, the female gang
member is more likely than the female non-gang member to have had the benefit of some
adult who tried to steer them away from gang influence.
As another commonality with male gang members, which has been previously called the
combative personality syndrome, female gang members like their male counterparts in the
gang are more likely to have been "bullies" in school. Another factor added to this negative
self-image is the belief about damnation: that if they died, they would go to hell. This
tendency towards a denunciation of society and all it stands for is further reflected in how
female gang members would be more likely to want to raise their own children to be gang
members. Fortunately only about a fifth of the female gang members would want to raise
their own children to be gang members.
146
TABLE 19
FACTORS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENTIATED BY
COMPARING FEMALE GANG MEMBERS WITH
FEMALE NON-GANG MEMBERS
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
Do you think that programs can be
effective in preventing kids from
getting involved in gangs?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square =
joining a gang?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
65
117
64.2
10.0, p
83
74
47.1
= .001
71
89
110
69
60.7 43.6
= 9.90, p = .002
I feel that gang problems can
be prevented by school education.
STRONGLY AGREE
38
15
AGREE
28
22
NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE 48
37
DISAGREE
39
33
STRONGLY DISAGREE 27
51
% Agree or Strongly Agree
36.6 23.4
Chi-square = 18.6, p = .001
I feel that gang problems can be
prevented by means of effective
drug prevention and drug education.
STRONGLY AGREE
AGREE
NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE
DISAGREE
35
31
53
40
16
25
27
41
147
49
37.2 25.9
Chi-square = 29.5, p < .001
Table 19: Continued
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
I feel that strict law enforcement
is the best solution to the
gang problem.
STRONGLY AGREE
30
AGREE
35
NEITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE 43
DISAGREE
41
36.1
Chi-square = 19.7, p =
20
16
26
40
57
22.6
.001
For kids at risk of joining a
gang, getting involved in educational
programs is a waste of time.
AGREE
45
DISAGREE
136
% Agree
24.8
Chi-square = 7.38, p =
62
99
38.5
.007
For kids at risk of joining a
gang, getting involved in
waste of time.
AGREE
46
61
DISAGREE
134
97
% Agree
25.5 38.6
Chi-square = 6.62, p = .01
Did you ever "bully" someone
in school?
NO
101
40
YES
81
116
% Yes
44.5 74.3
Chi-square = 30.7, p < .001
Have you ever been in courtmandated psychological
counseling or therapy?
148
NO
96
63
YES
75
92
% Yes
43.8 59.3
Chi-square = 7.81, p = .005
Table 19: Continued
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
Were or are your parents ever
active in the PTA?
NO
108
YES
71
% Yes 39.6
111
46
29.2
= .04
Do you think a "boot camp"
could influence some people
to get out of a gang?
NO
87
94
YES
89
62
% Yes 50.5 39.7
Chi-square = 3.90, p = .04
Have you received a high
school degree or GED?
NO
149
YES 35
% Yes 19.0
148
15
9.2
= .009
Do you have a permanent tattoo?
NO 113
55
YES
65
108
% Yes
36.5 66.2
Chi-square = 30.1, p < .001
Assume there is a God. So if
you died right now, where would
you go?
TO HELL 36
53
TO HEAVEN 129
104
% To Heaven
78.1
66.2
Chi-square = 5.73, p = .01
be effective in reaching out to
persons who might want to
quit the gang?
149
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
64
73
117
84
64.6
53.5
= 4.32, p = .03
Table 19: Continued
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
be effective in helping kids
stay out of gangs?
NO
72
YES 109
% Yes 60.2
Do you feel that if less attention
was given to gangs on television,
in newspapers, and in movies that
fewer people would join gangs?
NO
91
YES
91
% Yes
50.0
84
72
46.1
= .01
99
61
38.1
= .02
family been killed because of
gang trouble?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
99
35
85
128
46.1
78.5
= 38.1, p < .001
to be in a gang?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square
169
15
8.1
= 9.75, p
126
31
19.7
= .002
Do you think anyone in your
family uses drugs or drinks
too much?
NO
80
42
YES
104
120
% Yes
56.5
74.0
Chi-square = 11.6, p = .001
Have you ever had a good
150
relationship with an adult
who tried to prevent you from
being involved with gangs?
NO
64
36
YES
104
120
% Yes
61.9
76.9
Chi-square = 8.55, p = .003
Table 19: Continued
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
Have you ever been suspended
from school?
NO
41
15
YES
143
143
% Yes
77.7 90.5
Chi-square = 10.1, p = .001
Have you ever been expelled
from school?
NO
110
49
YES
74
112
% Yes
40.2 69.5
Chi-square = 29.7, p < .001
If you have or plan to have
children, would you encourage
them or discourage them from
joining a gang?
ENCOURAGE
14
DISCOURAGE
166
% Discourage
92.2
34
122
78.2
< .001
THE REMAINING FINDINGS PERTAIN
ONLY TO FEMALES IN CUSTODY:
fight with anyone in this facility?
NO
54
66
YES
16
64
% Yes
22.8 49.2
Chi-square = 13.1, p < .001
Have you threatened anyone with
violence in this facility? NO
57
65
YES
12
65
% Yes
17.3 50.0
Chi-square = 20.2, p < .001
weapon (knife, etc) in
151
this facility?
NO
YES
% Yes
Chi-square =
60
10
14.2
4.98, p
91
36
28.3
= .02
Table 19: Continued
Ever Join A Gang?
Frequency (N)
NO
YES
NO
62
YES
9
% Yes
12.6
Chi-square =
Have you tried to smuggle in
any illegal drugs while
in this facility?
NO
60
YES
8
% Yes 11.7
Chi-square =
86
43
33.3
10.1, p = .001
93
34
26.7
5.90, p = .01
152
Chapter 9
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OVERVIEW
We now come to the matter of summarizing some of the major findings of this large scale
interdisciplinary and collaborative research effort by sixteen researchers who over the course
of a year devoted their free time to this unfunded project. The purpose of this concluding
chapter, therefore, is to summarize these major findings, present our conclusions, and to make
recommendations.
SUMMARY
Sixteen researchers gathered extensive information about gang prevention and gang
intervention on over 3,000 youths from 24 different juvenile facilities or programs in 8 states
during 1995.
The researchers donated their labor to this probono project as part of a national consortium
developed to study gang prevention and gang intervention. The study sought to develop a
large national sample of the types of gangs in the kinds of environments their presence is most
felt. The study more than succeeded in this goal thanks to the volunteer efforts and the costs
being assumed by the individuals involved. Thus, this research did not have the benefit of
public or private funding. Such funding was simply not sought after: it was felt that the
problem was too pressing to wait for funding and the delays in the dissemination of
knowledge that accompany such funding from government or other sources. The task force
group therefore decided to independently undertake this large study without funding of any
kind. To stay on goal for this project basically meant having a weekly newsletter distributed
to task force members on the progress and milestones of this national research effort.
As indicated in the executive summary of findings, the typical gang member studied here
is male and has a host of background problems. These problems include their family
conditions, school experiences, and human development lifespan events --- often
characterized by inability to function in society and early traumatic and stressful experiences.
The gang for these youths becomes a haven for maladjustment. The gang for these youths
becomes an alternative social mechanism for the identity crisis and transition into young adult
status. The rituals and ceremonies of the gang become the modern urban equivalent of the
rites of passage. Unfortunately, it is a belief and behavior system that represents a threat to
not only to their own safety but to that of others as well. That includes the children of gang
members, because our data suggests about a fifth of the mothers of gang members would raise
their children to also be gang members. So the gang problem basically reproduces itself in
modern American society.
153
Some remarkable insights into the life of gang members have emerged from this study, the
first of its kind that could qualify as a national needs assessment for gang prevention and gang
intervention: because it used a very large sample of gang members and youths at risk of gang
membership for the basic raw data. Studies that rely on what government agencies say the
problem is and what should be done are basically suffering from the error of aggregation:
those at the top are in the least knowledgeable position of what the real need is. Needs
assessment means talking to the clients. We obtain the input from about 2,000 such gang
members for this study.
It may very well be that the current structure of gang prevention and gang intervention
resources that are publicly funded are not in alignment with the actual needs expressed by
youths at risk of gang membership. One strong consistent finding of the present research
helps us to understand something else about the gang problem in modern America today: the
problem did not emerge without society detecting it and responding to it in some fashion of
delivering social services and other types of formal and informal help. The typical gang
member had more, not less, help in this regard: the types of services they received just did not
work to deter them from their gang involvement. Further, the viewpoints on "what should be
done", on "what is effective" and "what is not effective" in gang prevention and gang
intervention differ significantly and consistently: gang members are much more skeptical
about the effectiveness of almost all strategies currently in use to combat this problem. The
non-gang members studied are more willing to assume that current approaches would be
effective in reducing the gang problem. Obviously, a difference exists here and this has many
implications for program evaluation.
CONCLUSION
Several of the researchers involved in this project have discussed the feasibility of a
national strategy for gang prevention and gang intervention that is more empirically based.
The idea, while not ready for immediate implementation, would be based on threat-risk
analysis: using a quantitative and qualitative rating scheme to assess the nature of the extent
of the gang problem represented by any individual, and then match existing resources to that
risk level. Some services, it would appear, are simply not new to the gang member. In fact
our research supports the merits of such a multifaceted risk-resource response: the more
serious the individual gang threat level the individual manifests, typically the greater the
number of service resources that same person has already been involved in.
There may be some merit to the idea of something like the G.R.I.P. (Gang Risk
Intervention Paradigm) which would allow local neighborhoods, communities, and cities to
respond to the gang problem through a logical and reality based approach. Several researchers
at the National Gang Crime Research Center, involved in the present research, are currently
developing this model and examining how it could be implemented by use of local committees
and groups established to develop a strategic plan for the reduction of gang violence.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One finding about gang members was both instructive and at the same time puzzling: it
dealt with the issue of religious damnation. Gang members, when asked to assume there is
a God, and asked further that if they died right now where would they go (to Heaven or to
Hell), were significantly more likely to report they expect to go to hell. We are reminded of
Tom Sawyer's comments along the same line: the youth did not want to go to Heaven because
that was where the uninteresting people were, rather Tom Sawyer remarked that Hell might
be more of an adventure. So do gang members really sense the religious and spiritual
meaning of this damnation, or do they view going to hell as another act of bravado? We do
not know, but we believe it would be worthwhile to follow-up on this issue of identity in
154
relationship to gang membership.
In otherwords, is the tendency for gang members to believe they would be more likely to
go to Hell a naive and romantic vision about hell --- like Tom Sawyer thinking the more
interesting people are those who go to hell. Or is it a measure of identity and self-concept?
We are not certain, but we do believe it is worthy of additional research. Such research is now
being planned, it is another national consortium or task force style of collaborative research
called Project GANGGEND, to examine gender and identity in much greater detail than ever
previously studied in the gang population.
Another pressing research need is to re-examine some of the implications of the present
research findings by using retrospective "timeline" measures: date of X service, first time
received Y service, last time received Z service, etc. By examining gang prevention and
intervention services in this type of lifespan nexus it might be possible to more precisely
isolate the exact nature of the differences between gang members and non-gang members in
terms of their significant differences about the relative effectiveness of gang prevention and
gang intervention services generally. There is also a need to develop some measurements of
the intensity of such social services consumption patterns (i.e., hours, duration, etc).
It is also clear that because this was an interdisciplinary team or consortium of researchers
that joined to make the research possible, that as many individual analyses of specific trends
and problems may exist as there are members of this task force. Such findings are expected
to be released shortly by individual members, all of whom have special and unique analyses
that were undertaken as a part of this national research effort.
155
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ON GANG PREVENTION AND GANG
INTERVENTION
Ackley, N. 1984 Gangs in Schools: Breaking Up Is Hard To Do, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C.
Ackerley, Ethel G. and Beverly R. Fliegel 1960 "A Social Work Approach to Street-Corner
Girls", Social Work (5)(4): 27-36.
Adams, Stuart 1967 "A Cost Approach to the Assessment of Gang Rehabilitation
Techniques", Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (Jan.).
Agopian, Michael 1991 "Evaluation of G.A.P.P. - Gang Alternative Prevention Project in the
Los Angeles Probation Department", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee.
Aiken, Carol; Jeffrey P. Rush; and Jerry Wycoff 1993 "A Preliminary Inquiry Into Alabama
Youth Gang Membership", The Gang Journal: An Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly
(1)(2): 37-47.
Amandes, Richard B. 1979 "Hire a Gang Leader: A Delinquency Prevention Program",
Juvenile and Family Court Journal (30)(1)(Feb): 37-40.
Anderson, James F. 1993 "Review Essay: A Methodological Critique of Islands in the
Streets", The Gang Journal: An Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly (1)(2): 49-57.
Arnold, William R. 1965 "The Concept of Gang", The Sociological Quarterly (7)(1): 59-75.
Austin, David M. 1957 "Goals for Gang Workers", Social Work (2)(4): 43-50
Axelson, Roland G. 1984 "The Psychological Influence of Street Gangs on SchoolAged Youth: A Case Study in Hartford, CT". The I.N. Thut World Education Center,
Hartford, CT.
Bailey, William C. 1969 "Educational and Occupational Experience, Perception, and Future
Expectations of Lower Class Negro Gang Delinquents", Master's thesis, Washington
State University.
Baird, L.H.1986 "Prison Gangs: Texas", Corrections Today (18)(July): 22.
Baittle, Brahm 1961 "Psychiatric Aspects of the Development of a Street Corner Group: An
Exploratory Study", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry (31)(Oct): 703-712.
Barker, George C. 1950 Pachuco: An American-Spanish Argot and Its Social
Function in Tucson, Arizona. Social Science Bulletin No. 18 (Vol. XXI)(No. 1)(Jan),
Tucson, Arizona:
University of Arizona Press.
Beck, L.M. 1962 Three Groups of Delinquents of the Family Court of East Baton Rouge
Parish, Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Beier, Ernest G. 1951 "Experimental Therapy With a Gang", Focus (30) (July): 97-102. Bell,
J. and D. Sullivan 1987 Jackson, Mississippi Mayor's Task Force on Gangs: Final
Report, Jackson, MS.
Bernstein, Saul 1964 Youth on the Streets -- Work with Alienated Youth Groups. New York:
Associated Press.
Bloch, Herbert and Arthur Niederhoffer 1957 "Adolescent Behavior and the Gang: A Cross156
Cultural Analysis", Journal of Social Therapy (3): 174-179. 1958 The Gang: A Study
in Adolescent Behavior. New York: Philosophical Press.
Block, Carolyn Rebecca and Richard Block 1993 Street Gang Crime In Chicago. National
Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. December.
Blumberg, Leonard 1964 "A Possible Application of the Epidemiological-Public
Health Model to Civic Action-Research", Social Problems (12)(Fall): 178-185.
Bogardus, Emory 1943 "Gangs of Mexican-American Youth", Sociology and Social
Research (28): 55-66.
Bolitho, W. 1930 "The Psychosis of the Gang", Survey: 501-506.
Bookin, H. 1980 "The Gangs That Didn't Go Straight", paper presented at the Society for the
Study of Social Problems, New York.
Born, Peter 1971 Street Gangs and Youth Unrest. Chicago: Chicago Tribune Educational
Service Department.
Bowker, L.H. and Malcolm W. Klein 1983 "The Etiology of Female Juvenile Delinquency
and Gang Membership: A Test of Psychological and Social Structural Explanations",
Adolescence (18)(72)(Win): 739-751.
Brooks, William Allan 1952 Girl Gangs. A Survey of Teen-Age Drug Addicts, Sex
Crimes, Rape, Kleptomania, Prostitution, Truancy, and Other Deviations. New York:
Padell Book Company.
Brotman, Richard 1949 A Group Approach to the Treatment of the Aggressive Gang,
Master's Thesis, City College of New York.
Brown, Waln K. 1977 "Black Female Gangs in Philadelphia", International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (21): 221-228. 1978 "Black Gangs
as Family Extensions" & "Graffiti, Identity, and the Delinquent Gang", International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (22)(1): 39-48.
Brueckner, William H. 1960 "Corner Group Work with Teen-Age Gangs", Federal
Probation (24)(Dec): 84.
Bryant, D. 1989 Community Responses Crucial for Dealing With Youth Gangs, U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C.
California Attorney General's Youth Gang Task Force 1981 Report on Youth Gang
Violence in California. California: Department of Justice. California Council on
Criminal Justice 1986 Final Report: State Task Force on Youth Gang Violence.
Sacramento, CA. 1989 State Task Force on Gangs and Drugs. Sacramento, CA:
95823.
Camp, George and Camille Graham Camp 1985 Prison Gangs: Their Extent, Nature, and
Impact on Prisons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice.
Campbell, Anne 1984 The Girls in the Gang: A Report from New York City. New York:
Basil Blackwell Ltd. 1984 "Girls' Talk: The Social Representation of Aggression by
Female Gang Members", Criminal Justice Behavior (11): 139-156. 1987 "Self
Definitions by Rejection: The Case of Gang Girls", Social Problems (34)(5)(Dec):
451-466.
Caplan, Nathan S.; Dennis J. Deshaies, Gerald D. Suttles, and Hans W. Mattick 1963 "The
Nature, Variety, and Patterning of Street Club Work in an Urban Setting", pp. 135-169
in Malcolm W. Klein and Barbara G. Meyerhoff (eds), Juvenile Gangs in Context:
Theory,Research, and Action, Confererence Report, August 25-26, 1963, Youth
Studies Center, Los Angeles: University of Southern California. 1964 "Factors
Affecting the Process and Outcome of Street Club Work", Sociology and Social
Research (48)(Jan): 207-219.
157
Carey, Sean 1985 "I just Hate 'em, That's All", New Society (73)(1178)(July): 123-125.
Cartwright, Desmond S. and Kenneth I. Howard 1966 "Multivariate Analysis of Gang
Delinquency: I. Ecologic Influences", Multivariate Behavioral Research (1)(July):
321-71.
Cartwright, Desmond S.; Kenneth I. Howard; and Nicholas A. Reuterman 1970 "Multivariate
Analysis of Gang Delinquency: II. Structural and Dynamic Properties of Gangs",
Multivariate Behavioral Research (5)(July): 303-24. ----- 1971 "Multivariate Analysis
of Gang Delinquency: III. Age and Physique of Gangs and Clubs", Multivariate
Behavioral Research (6)(Jan): 75-90 ----- 1980 "Multivariate Analysis of Gang
Delinquency: IV. Personality Factors in Gangs and Clubs", Multivariate Behavioral
Research (15): 3-22.
Cartwright, Desmond S.; B. Tomson; and H. Schwartz 1975 Gang Delinquency. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Cavanagh, Suzanne and David Teasley 1992 Youth Gangs: An Overview. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service.
Cellini, Henry D. 1991 Youth Gang Prevention and Intervention Strategies. Albuquerque,
NM: Training and Research Institute, Inc.
Chazal, J. 1964 "A Current Criminological Problem: Juvenile Delinquency in Gangs",
Quebec Society of Criminology Bulletin(3)(2): 5-11.
Cloward, R.A. and L.E. Ohlin 1960 Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, Albert K. 1955 Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.
Collins, Jessie. 1993 "Joe: The Story of an Ex-Gang Member", Gang Journal: An
Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly (1)(3): 45-50.
Conrad, J.P. 1979 "Who's in Charge? The Control of Gang Violence in California Prisons",
in Correctional Facility Planning edited by Robert Montilla and Nora Marlow, pp.
135-147, Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath.
Cook, James I. 1993 "Targetting Gang Violence in the City of Westminister",
Westminister Police Department, Westminister, CA.
Covey, Herbert C.; Scott Menard; and Robert J. Franzese 1992 Juvenile Gangs. Charles C.
Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL.
Cox, V. 1986 "Prison Gangs - Inmates Battle for Control", Corrections Compendium
(10)(9)(Apr): 1,6-9.
Crane, A.R. 1951 "A Note on Pre-Adolescent Gangs", Australian Psychology (3): 43-45.
1958 "The Development of Moral Values in Children: IV; Pre-Adolescent Gangs and
the Moral Development of Children", British Journal of Educational Psychology
(28)(Nov): 201-208.
Crawford, Paul I.; Daniel I. Malamud; and James R. Dumpson 1950 Working With Teenage
Gangs. A Report on the Central Harlem Street Clubs Project. New York: Welfare
Council of New York City.Crime Control Digest 1976 "Detroit Mayor Against City's
Growing Youth Gangs: Citizen Involvement in Crime Prevention", Aug. 30, 1976, p.
5, (10)(35). 1980 "Gangs - Police, Community Relations", Mar. 30, 1980, pp. 7-8,
(14)(9). 1984 "Police Community Relations: Gangs - Chicago Police Department:
Citizen Involvement in Crime Prevention", Mar. 26, 1984, pp. 5-6, (18)(12). 1987
"Detroit Mayor Unveils Plan to Fight Youth Crime: Gangs and Crime Prevention", Jan
26, 1987, p. 6, (21)(4). 1987 "California's Vietnam Refugees Work on Their Own to
Divert Teens from Street Gangs", June 8, 1987, pp. 9-10,(21)(23).
158
Crowner, James M. 1963 "Utilizing Certain Positive Aspects of Gang Phenomena in Training
School Group Work", American Journal of Correction (25)(July-August): 24-27.
Cummings, Scott and Daniel Monti (eds.) 1993 Gangs: The Origins and Impact of
Contemporary Youth Gangs in the United States. Albany, NY: State University New
York Press.
Cusson, Maurice 1989 "Disputes over Honor and Gregarious Aggressions", Revue
Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique (Geneva, SWITZ) (42)(3): 290297.
Dahmann, J. 1981 "Operation Hardcore: A Prosecutorial Response to Violent Gang
Criminality", interim report, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA.
Daniels, S. 1987 "Prison Gangs: Confronting the Threat", Corrections Today (29)(2)(Apr):
66,126,162.
Dawley, David 1973 A Nation of Lords: The Autobiography of the Vice Lords. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Press. 1992 A Nation of Lords. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Delaney, Lloyd T. 1954 "Establishing Relationships with Antisocial Groups and an Analysis
of Their Structure", British Journal of Delinquency (5)(1): 34-42.
De Leon, Aleister 1977 "Averting Violence in the Gang Community", The Police Chief
(44)(7)(July): 52-53.
Dumpson, J.R. 1949 "An Approach to Antisocial Street Gangs", Federal Probation: 22-29.
Dumpson, James R., et al 1952 "Gang and Narcotic Problems of Teen-Age Youth",
American Journal of Psychotherapy (6)(Apr): 312-46.
Dunbar, Ellen A. 1963 "How to Help the Gang Member Through His Family", Special
Service for Groups, Los Angeles: unpublished.
Dunston, Leonard G. 1990 Report of the Task Force on Juvenile Gangs. New York State
Division for Youth. Albany, New York.
Duran, M. 1975 "What Makes a Difference in Working with Youth Gangs?", Crime
Prevention Review (2): 25-30.
Erlanger, Howard S. 1979 "Estrangement, Machismo and Gang Violence", Social Science
Quarterly (60)(2): 235-49.
Fagan, Jeffrey 1989 "The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing Among Urban
Gangs", Criminology (27)(4): 633-664.
Fagan, Jeffrey and Ko-lin Chin 1989 "Violence as Regulation and Social Control in the
Distribution of Crack", in M. De la Rosa; B. Gropper; and E. Lambert (eds.), Drugs
and Violence, National Institute of Drug Abuse Research Monograph, Rockville,
MD: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services.
Ferrell, Jeff 1992 Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Urban Criminality. New
York: Garland.
Fishman, L. 1988 "The Vice Queens: An Ethnographic Study of Black Female Gang
Behavior", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of
Criminology. Florida House of Representatives 1987 Issue Paper: Youth Gangs in
Florida. Committee on Youth. Tallahassee, FL.
Friedman, C.J.; F. Mann; and A.S. Friedman 1975 "A Profile of Juvenile Street Gang
Members", Adolescence (10): 563-607. 1976
"Juvenile Street Group: The
Victimization of Youth", Adolescence, (44)(Winter): 527-533.
Fry, John. 1969 Fire and Blackstone. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. 1973 Locked Out
Americans. New York: Harper and Row.
Furfey, Paul Hanley. 1926 The Gang Age: A Study of the Pre-Adolescent Boy and His
Recreational Needs. New York: The Macmillan Company.
159
Furman, Sylvan S. (ed). 1952 Reaching the Unreached. "Working with a Street Gang"
(pp. 112-121) New York: New York City Youth Board.
Gandy, John M. 1959 "Preventive Work with Street-Corner Groups: Hyde Park
Project, Chicago", Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science
(323)(Mar): 107-116.
Goldstein, Arnold P. 1991 Delinquent Gangs: A Psychological Perspective. Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
Goldstein, Arnold P. and Barry Glick, et al. 1994 The Prosocial Gang: Implementing
Aggression Replacement Training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gonzalez, Alfredo 1981 Mexican/Chicano Gangs in Los Angeles. D.S.W. dissertation,
University of California at Berkeley, School of Social Welfare.
Gordon, Robert A. 1963 Values and Gang Delinquency, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Chicago. 1967 "Social Level, Disability, and Gang Interaction", American Journal of
Sociology (73)(July): 42-62.
Gordon, Robert A.; James Short, Jr.; Desmond S. Cartwright; and Fred L. Strodtbeck 1963
"Values and Gang Delinquency: A Study of Street-Corner Groups", American Journal
of Sociology (69)(2): 109-128 1970 "Values and Gang Delinquency: A Study of
Street-Corner Groups", Chapter 33 in Wolfgang, et al (eds.), The Sociology of Crime
and Delinquency, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, pp. 319-339.
Gorn, Elliott J. 1987 "Good-Bye Boys, I Die a True American": Homicide, Nativism, and
Working-Class Culture in Antebellum New York City", Journal of American History
(74)(2)(Sept): 388-410.
Haire, Thomas D. 1979 "Street Gangs: Some Suggested Remedies for Violence and
Vandalism", The Police Chief (46)(7)(July): 54-55.
Harding, J. 1952 "A Street Corner Gang and its Implications for Sociological and
Psychological Theory", In J.E. Hulett and K.R. Stagner (eds.), Problems in Social
Psychology, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Hardman, Dale G. 1963 Small Town Gangs, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois,
College of Education. 1967 "Historical Perspectives of Gang Research", Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency (4)(1): 5-27. 1969 "Small Town Gangs", Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Studies (60)(2): 173-81.
Harris, Mary G. 1988 Cholas: Latino Girls and Gangs. New York: AMS Press. Harrison,
F.V. 1988 "The Politics of Outlawry in Urban Jamaica", Urban Anthropology
(17)(2,3)(Sum/Fall): 259-277.
Helmreich, W.B. 1973 "Black Crusaders: The Rise and Fall of Political Gangs", Society
(11)(1)(Nov/Dec): 44-50.
Hogrefe, Russell and John Harding 1947 "Research Considerations in the Study of Street
Gangs", Applied Anthropology (6)(Fall): 21-24.
Horowitz, Ruth and Gary Schwartz 1974 "Honor, Normative Ambiguity and Gang Violence",
American Sociological Review (39): 238-51.
Houston, James G. 1993 "An Interview with Lewis Yablonsky: The Violent Gang and
Beyond", The Gang Journal: An Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly (1)(2): 59-67.
1994 "National Policy Neglect and Its Impact on Gang Suppression", Journal of Gang
Research (2)(1)(Fall):35-62.
Hunsaker, A. 1981 "The Behavioral-Ecological Model of Intervention With Chicano Gang
Delinquents", Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences (3): 225-239.
Jackson, Pamela Irving 1991 "Crime, Youth Gangs, and Urban Transition: The Social
Dislocations of Postindustrial Economic Development", Justice Quarterly (8)(3):
379-397.
160
Jankowski, Martin Sanchez 1991 Islands in the Street: Gangs American Urban Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jereczek, Gordon E. 1962 "Gangs Need Not Be Delinquent", Federal Probation
(26)(Mar): 49-52.
Johnson, Gwendolyn 1949 The Transformation of Juvenile Gangs into Accommodated
Groups: A Study of Eight Boys' Gangs in Washington. Master's Thesis, Howard
University. Juvenile Justice Digest 1980 "Police Community Relations: Crime
Prevention of Gangs", Feb. 22, 1980, pp. 7-8 (8)(4).
Kantor, David and William Ira Bennett 1968 "Orientation of Street-Corner Workers and
Their Effect on Gangs", In Stanton Wheeler (ed.), Controlling Delinquents, New York:
Wiley.
Karacki, Larry and Jackson Toby 1962 "The Uncommitted Adolescent: Candidate for Gang
Socialization", Sociological Quarterly (32)(Spr): 203-215.
Klein, Malcolm W. 1965 "Juvenile Gangs, Police, and Detached Workers: Controversies
About Intervention", Social Service Review (39): 183-190 1968b From Association
to Guilt: The Group Guidance Project in Juvenile Gang Intervention. Los Angeles:
Youth Studies Center. 1968c The Ladino Hill Project. Los Angeles: Youth Studies
Center. 1969c "Gang Cohesiveness, Delinquency, and a Street-Work Program",
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (July). 1971 Street Gangs and Street
Workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1990 "Having an Investment in
Violence: Some Thoughts About the American Street Gang", The Edwin H. Sutherland
Award Address to the American Society of Criminology, Annual Meeting, November
9, 1990.
Klein, Malcolm W. and Barbara G. Meyerhoff (eds) 1964 Juvenile Gangs in Context:
Theory, Research, and Action, Conference Report, August 25-26, 1963,Youth Studies
Center, Los Angeles: University of Southern California.
Klein, Malcolm W. and Neal Snyder 1965 "The Detached Worker: Uniformities and
Variances in Style", Social Work (10)(Oct): 60-68.
Knox, George W. 1978 "Perceived Closure and Respect for the Law Among Delinquent and
Non-Delinquent Youths", Youth and Society (9)(4)(June): 385-406. 1980
"Educational Upgrading for Youthful Offenders", Chidren and Youth Services Review
(2)(3): 291-313. 1981 "Differential Integration and Job Retention Among
Exoffenders", Criminology (18)(4)(Feb): 481-499. 1981 "A Comparative Cost-Benefit
Analysis of Offender Placement Programs", LAE Journal of the American Criminal
Justice Association (43)(1,2): 39-49. 1984 "How Criminologists View Rehabilitation",
Indian Journal of Criminology (12)(1)(Jan): 26-32. 1989 "Family Services in
Corrections", The State of Corrections, Proceedings of the Annual Conferences of The
American Correctional Association, pp. 179-182. 1991 An Introduction to Gangs.
Berrien Springs, MI: Vande Vere Publishing, Ltd.1991 "Gangs and Social Justice
Issues", chapter 1 (pp. 1-19), in Sloan T. Letman (Ed.), Prison Conditions and Prison
Overcrowding, Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company. 1992
"Gang Organization in a Large Urban Jail", American Jails. 1995 An Introduction to
Gangs, 3rd edition, Wyndham Hall Press, Indiana.
Knox, George W.; Benito Garcia; and Pat Mc Clendon 1983 "Social and Behavioral
Correlates of Gang Affiliation", paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Criminology, Nov. 10, 1983, Denver, CO.
Knox, George W.; Edward D. Tromanhauser; and David Laske 1992 Schools Under Siege.
161
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Knox, George W.; Edward Tromanhauser; and Thomas F. Mc Currie 1991 "Gangs in
Juvenile Corrections: Training Issues", Journal of Correctional Training (forthcoming).
Knox, George W.; and Edward Tromanhauser 1991 "Gangs and Their Control in Adult
Correctional Institutions", The Prison Journal (LXXI)(2)(Fall-Winter): 15-22.1991
"Gang Members as a Distinct Health Risk Group in Juvenile Correctional Facilities",
The Prison Journal (LXXI)(2)(Fall-Winter): 61-66. 1992 "Comparing Juvenile
Correctional Facilities: A Brief Overview", Journal of Juvenile Justice and Detention
Services (7)(1)(Spr): 7-13. 1993 "Gang Training in Adult Correctional Institutions:
A Function of Intensity, Duration and Impact of the Gang Problem", Journal of
Correctional Training.
Knox, George W.; Edward D. Tromanhauser; Pamela Irving Jackson; Darek Niklas; James
G. Houston; Paul Koch; and James R. Sutton 1993 "Preliminary Findings from the
1992 Law Enforcement Mail Questionnaire Project", Gang Journal: An
Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly (1)(3): 11-27.
Kobrin, Solomon 1959 "The Chicago Area Project - a Twenty-five Year Assessment",
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (322): 19-29. 1961
"Sociological Aspects of the Development of a Street Corner Group: An Exploratory
Study", Amerian Journal of Orthopsychiatry (31)(4): 685-702. 1964 "Legal and
Ethical Problems of Street Gang Work", Crime and Delinquency (10)(2): 152-156.
Kobrin, Solomon and Malcolm W. Klein 1983 Community Treatment of Juvenile Offenders:
The DSO Experiments. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Kotlowitz, Alex 1991 There Are No Children Here. New York: Doubleday. 1992 There
Are No Children Here. New York: Anchor Books.
Krisberg, Barry 1971 Urban Leadership Training: An Ethnographic Study of 22 Gang
Leaders. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 1975 The Gang
and the Community. School of Criminology, University of California, Berkeley. San
Franciso, CA: R and E Research Associates.
Lagree, J. and P.L. Fai 1989 "Girls in Street Gangs in the Suburbs of Paris" (from Growing
up Good: Policing the Behavior of Girls in Europe, pp. 80-95, Maureen Cain, editor),
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Leissner, Aryeh 1969 Street Club Work in Tel Aviv and New York. London:
Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd. Majors, Richard and Janet Mancini Billson 1992 Cool Pose:
The Dilemmas of Black Manhood in America. New York: Lexington Books.
Martin, Richard H. 1993 "Gang Colors: Should Students Be Allowed to Wear Them in
College?", The Gang Journal: An Interdisciplinary Research Quarterly (1)(2): 69. 69.
Mattick, Hans W. and Nathan S. Caplan 1962 Chicago Youth Development Project: Street
Work, Community Organization and Research, April, University of Michigan Institute
for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1964 The Chicago Youth Development
Project, February, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Mc Carthy, J.E. and J.S. Barbaro 1952 "Redirecting Teenage Gangs", in S.S. Furman (ed.),
New York City Youth Board.
Mc Connell, Elizabeth H. 1990 "Assessing Youth Gangs in an Urban High School", paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Baltimore,
MD. 1994 "Youth Gang Intervention and Prevention in Texas: Evaluating Community
Mobilization Training", Journal of Gang Research (2)(1)(Fall): 63-71.
Mc Kay, Henry D. 1949 "The Neighborhood and Child Conduct", Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (Jan): 32-41.
162
Mc Lean, Gordon. 1991 Cities of Lonesome Fear: God Among the Gangs. Chicago: Moody
Press.
Miller, Walter B. 1957 "The Impact of a Community Group Work Program on Delinquent
Corner Groups", Social Service Review (31): 396-406. 1962 "The Impact of a 'Total
Community' Delinquency Control Project", Social Problems (10)(Fall): 168-91. 1963
"The Corner Gang Boys Get Married", Transaction (1): 10-12. 1969 "White Gangs",
Transaction (6)(1).
Milner, John G. 1959 "Working With Juvenile Gang Members", California Youth Authority,
Quarterly (12)(Spr): 3-7.
Mitchell, R. 1951 "Capturing Boys Gangs", Human Organization (Summer).
Molland, John, Jr. 1967 Cross Pressures: A Study of the Reconciliation by the Gang Boys
of Perceived Expectations of Others, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago.
Moore, Joan W. 1977 "The Chicano Pinto Research Project: A Case Study in Collaboration",
Journal of Social Issues (33)(4): 144-158. 1978 Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison
in the Barrios of Los Angeles, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1985 "Isolation
and Stigmatization in the Development of the Underclass: The Case of the Chicano
Gangs in East Los Angeles", Social Problems (33)(1)(Oct):1-12. 1989 "Is There a
Hispanic Underclass?", Social Science Quarterly (70)(2): 265-285. 1989 "Gangs and
Gang Violence: What we Know and What We Don't Know", paper presented at the
California State University, Los Angeles, CA 1991 Going Down to the Barrio:
Homeboys and Homegirls in Change. Philadelpha, PA: Temple University Press.
Moore, Joan W. and J.D. Vigil 1987 "Chicano Gangs: Group Norms and Individual Factors
Related to Adult Criminality", Aztlan (18)(2)(Fall): 27-44.
Morales, Armando 1963 "A Study of Recidivism of Mexican-American Junior Forestry
Camp Graduates", Master's Thesis, Social Work, University of Southern California.
1982 "The Mexican American Gang Member: Evaluation and Treatment", in Mental
Health and Hispanic Americans by Rosina M. Becerra, Marvin Karno, and Javier I.
Escobar (eds.), New York: Grune and Stratton. 1989 "A Clinical Model for the
Prevention of Gang Violence and Homicide", In A. Morales and B.W. Sheafor, Social
Work: A Profession of Many Faces, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Morris, Robert E., MD; Edward A. Harrison; George W. Knox; Edward Tromanhauser;
Damon K. Marquis; Lydia L. Watts 1995 "Health Risk Behavioral Survey Form Thirty
Nine, Juvenile Correctional Facilities in the United States". National School Safety
Center 1988 Gangs in Schools: Breaking Up is Hard to Do. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine
University Press. National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program 1989
Report of the Law Enforcement Youth Symposium. 1990 Literature Review: Youth
Gangs: Problem and Response. University of Chicago, School of Social Service
Administration, Chicago, IL.1990 Survey of Youth Gang Problems and Programs in
45 Cities and 6 Sites. 1990 Community and Institutional Reponses to the Youth Gang
Problem. 1990 Law Enforcement Definitional Conference - Transcript. 1990 The
Youth Gang Problem: Perceptions of Former Youth Gang Influentials. Transcripts of
Two Symposia. n.d. Preventing Involvement in Youth Gang Crime.
Neisser, Edith G. and Nina Ridenour 1960 Your Children and Their Gangs. U.S. Children's
Bureau.Publication No. 384. Washington, D.C. New York City Youth Board 1960
Reaching the Fighting Gang. New York.
O'Hagan, F.J. 1976 "Gang Characteristics: An Empirical Survey", Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry (17): 305-314.
Oleson, Jim 1988 Treating Street Youth: Some Observations. Community Research
Associates, 115 N. Neil Street, Suite 302, Champaign, IL 61820.
163
Ontario Police Department 1989 "Gangs, Move 'Em Out of Your Life", (video). Ontario,
CA 91761.
Padilla, Felix 1992 The Gang as an American Enterprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press. Paramount Plan 1988 The Paramount Plan: Alternatives to Gang
Membership. City of Paramount, California.
Phelps, Roy David 1988 The History of the Eastside Dudes, a Black Social Club in Central
Harlem, New York City, 1933-1985: An Exploration of Background Factors Related
to Adult Criminality. Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, Bronx, New York.
Pleister, Margaret A. 1963 An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing Nine Adolescent
Girls in their Movement To and From Both School and the Gang, Master's thesis,
Social Work, University of Southern California.
Police Chief, The. 1979 "Gangs, Violence, Vandalism: Citizen Involvement in Crime
Prevention", (46)(7): 54-55.
Pope, W
hi tney 1962 Detached Workers, Delinquent Boys and the Theory of Exchange,
Master's Thesis, University of Chicago.
Poston, Richard W. 1971 The Gang and the Establishment. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
Puffer, J. Adams 1912 The Boy and His Gang. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co.
Quicker, John C. 1983 Homegirls: Characterizing Chicana Gangs. San Pedro,
California: International Universities Press. 1983 Seven Decades of Gangs: What has
been done, and what should be done. Sacramento, CA: State of California Commission
on Crime Control and Violence Prevention.
Redl, Fritz 1954 "The Psychology of Gang Formation and the Treatment of Juvenile
Delinquency", pp. 367-377 in The Psycho-Analytic Study of the Child, Vol. 1, New
York: International Universities Press.
Regulus, Thomas A. 1994 "The Effects of Gangs on Student Performance and Delinquency
in Public Schools", Journal of Gang Research (2)(1)(Fall): 1-13.
Ribisl, Kurt M. and William S. Davidson, II 1993 "Community Change Interventions",
Chapter 11 (pp. 333- 355) in Arnold P. Goldstein and C. Ronald Huff (Eds.), The
Gang Intervention Handbook, Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Riccio, Vincent and Bill Slocum 1962 All The Way Down: The Violent Underworld of
Street Gangs. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Richards, C. 1958 "Can We Get a Focus For Our Working With Hostile or Hard To Reach
Youth Gangs," Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago.
Ridgeway, James 1990 Blood in the Face: The Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, Nazi
Skinheads, and the Rise of a New White Culture. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.
Robert, Phillipe and Pierre Lascoumes. 1974 Les Bands D'Adolescents: Une Theorie de la
Segregation. Paris, France: Les Editions Ouvieres.
Rodeheffer, I.A. 1949 "Gangdom: Fists to Reasoning", Journal of Educational
Sociology (22)(Feb): 406-15.
Rodriguez, Luis J. 1994 Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in L.A..
Curbstone Press.
Rosenbaum, Dennis P. and Jane A. Grant 1983 "Gangs and Youth Problems in Evanston:
Research Findings and Policy Options", Center for Urban Affairs and Policy
Research, Northwestern University, July 22, 1983.
Rothman, Edwin, et al 1974 The Gang Problem in Philadelphia: Proposals for Improving the
Programs of Gang-Control Agencies. Pennsylvania Economy League (Eastern
Division) in association with the Bureau of Municipal Research Liberty Trust
164
Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 19107, Report No. 375; supported by a grant from the
William Penn Foundation.
Sanchez-Jankowski, Martin 1991 Islands in the Street: Gangs in American Urban Society.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Schwendinger, Herman and Julia 1985 Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency. New York:
Praeger.
Schwitzgebel, Ralph 1965 Street-Corner Research: An Experimental Approach to
the Juvenile Delinquent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schlossman, Steven and Michael Sedlak 1983 The Chicago Area Project Revisted. A Rand
Note. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand
Corporation.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay 1931 Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency: A
Study of Community, the Family, and the Gang in Relation to Delinquent Behavior.
Volume II in the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Anthony Sorrentino. 1956 "Is 'Gang-Busting' Wise?", National
Parent-Teacher Magazine (50)(Jan): 18-20+.
Sherman, Lawrence W. 1970 Youth Workers, Police and the Gangs: Chicago 1956-1970,
Master's thesis, University of Chicago. 1973 "Street Work History Includes Three
Stages", The Forum (May): 17-24.
Shireman, Charles H., et al 1957 An Examination and Analysis of Technique Used by a
Street Worker. Chicago: Hyde Park Youth Project. 1958 An Analysis of the Dynamics
of the Interrelationship of Agency, Group and Community in Providing
Staff
Service To A "Street Club". Hyde Park Youth Project. Welfare Council of
Metropolitan Chicago.
Short, James F., Jr. and Fred L. Strodtbeck 1965 Group Process and Gang Delinquency.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Slack, Charles W. 1963 "SCORE -- A Description", in Experiment in Culture Expansion,
Report of Proceedings, U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD.
Spergel, Irving 1960 Types of Delinquent Groups, D.S.W. dissertation, Columbia University.
Dissertation Abstracts (21)(Jan): 2034-35 (1961). 1966 Street Gang Work: Theory and
Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc 1984 "Violent
Gangs in Chicago: In Search of Social Policy", Social Service Review (58): 199-226.
1986 "The Violent Gang Problem in Chicago: A Local Community Approach", Social
Service Review (60)(1)(Mar): 94-131. 1988 "The Youth Gang Problem: A
Preliminary Policy Pespective", draft, Prepared for the Juvenile Gang Suppression and
Intervention Research and Development Program, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Dept. of Justice. 1989 Youth Gangs: Problem and
Response: A Review of the Literature, Executive Summary. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C. 1990 "The
Violent Gang Problem in Chicago: A Local Community Approach", Social Service
Review (60)(1)(Mar): 94-131.
Spergel, Irving A. and Ron L. Chance 1990 Community and Institutional Responses to the
Youth Gang Problem: Case Studies Based on Field Visits and Other Materials.
National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Project, School of Social Service
Administration, University of Chicago (Jan.).
Spergel, Irving A.; Glen David Curry; R.A. Ross; and R. Chance 1989 Survey of Youth
Gang Problems and Programs in 45 Cities and 6 Sites (Technical Report, No. 2,
National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Project), Chicago: School of
165
Social Service Administration, University of Chicago.
Spergel, Irving A.; et al 1994 Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models
Research Summary. October. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Washington, D.C.
Steward, Samuel M. 1990 Bad Boys and Tough Tattoos. New York: Harrington Park.
Strodtbeck, Fred L.; James F. Short, Jr.; and Ellen Kolegar 1962 "The Analysis of SelfDescriptions by Members of Different Gangs", Sociological Quarterly (24): 331-356.
Swans, Bennie J., Jr. 1985 "Gangbusters! Crisis Intervention Network.", School Safety,
Winter, 1985, pp. 12-15, National School Safety Center.
Takata, Susan and Richard Zevitz 1987 "Youth Gangs in Racine: An Examination of
Community Perceptions", Wisconsin Sociologist (24)(4)(Fall):132-141 1990
"Divergent Perceptions of Group Delinquency in a Midwestern Community: Racine's
Gang Problem", Youth and Society (21)(3)(Mar): 282-305.
Tennyson, Ray A. 1966 Family Structure and Gang Delinquency. Ph.D. dissertation,
Washington State University.
Thompson, D.W. 1986 Preventing Youth Membership in Urban Street Gangs: The
Evaluation of a Behavioral Community Intervention. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 47, 3987B.
Thompson, David W. and Leonard A. Jason 1988 "Street Gangs and Preventive
Interventions", Criminal Justice and Behavior (15)(3)(Sept): 323-333.
Thrasher, Frederic M. 1927 The Gang. A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 1936 _____. 2nd revised eidition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. 1968 _____. Third Impression, Abridged and with a Introduction
by James F. Short, Jr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tromanhauser, Edward 1981 "The Problem of Street Gangs", chapter IV in Chicago
Safe School Study, Board of Education, City of Chicago.
Webb, Margot 1991 Coping With Street Gangs. New York: Free Press.
Weiner, Arthur K. 1965 "C-r-a-c-k-i-n-g The Hard Core Area", Police Chief (32)(Jan): 2731.
Weissman, Harold (ed.) 1969 Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth.
New York: Association Press.
West, Pat and Tony Ostos 1988 Pilot Study: City of Paramount Alternatives to Gang
Membership Program. City of Paramount, 16400 Colorado Ave., Paramount, CA
90723.
Yablonsky, Lewis 1958 A Field Study of Delinquent Gang Organization and Behavior With
Special Emphasis on Gang Warfare. Ph.D. dissertation, New York University.
166
ENDNOTES:
1.Actually, it was a "Twin Cities" gang summit, scheduled for
July 14-18, 1993 at the Mount Olivet Baptist Church in St. Paul,
Minnesota. Louis Farrakhan who commands a speaking fee $25,000
(a rate quoted by a New York agency in 1991 for a speech fee to a
Chicago university --- which could not afford the fee) is listed
as one of the speakers at the gang summit entitled "All Nations
Under God". The Vice Lords who are heavily involved in the
Minneapolis gang summit swear allegiance to Islam in their gang
constitution. The Twin Cities gang summit founders (e.g., of the
United For and In Peace gang alliance) make no claims of being
"ex-" gang members...they readily admit their gang membership.
(See "Sharif Willis Shocked By Testimonies in A.C. Ford Trial",
by Jae Bryson, Insight: The Journal for Business & The Arts,
(20)(23): Monday, June 7, 1993, p. 1).
2.See: Mark Brunswick, 1992, "A Tale of Two Cities and the Gangs
that Couldn't Stay Straight", Star Tribune, Metro Edition, Nov.
19, 1992.
3.Most recently Ribisl and Davidson (1993) also argue the need
for such a theory at the base of any program; they also cite the
work of Lipsey (1988). Well before this Daniel Glaser also
showed that one of the biggest mistakes in program evaluation was
not having a theoretical approach to work with.
4.One of the most interesting spinoffs of the American gang
problem is the emergence of corporate consulting firms that
specialize in "gang intervention" and training. The city of
Joliet, Illinois hired Urban Dynamics, Incorporated for such
consulting services to the Joliet Gang Task Force; but then
terminated the contract by a vote of 7-1 from the City Council -- apparently because gang violence did not subside, and rather
increased. (See, Jerry Shnay, 1993, "Joliet Cuts Ties With 3rd
Firm Hired to Help Fight Gangs", Chicago Tribune (Southwest),
section 2, p. 1, Aug. 5, 1993).
5.Founded by LueElla Edwards after her 15-year-old daughter was
killed by stray gang gunfire at Chicago's Cabrini Green housing
complex, the "Take Our Daughters To Work Club" works on identity
and self-esteem issues for young females at a critical age when
they may gravitate towards the gang or towards early motherhood.
See K.T. Le, 1993, "After Child's Death, Mom Puts Grief to Good
Work", Chicago Sun-Times, July 13, 1993, p. 17.
167
6.Located at 1329 W. Grand in Chicago.
in the summer of 1993.
Mr. Brandisi passed away
7.See "Cabrini Drummers Are Hard To Beat", Raymond R. Coffey,
Chicago Sun-Times, Friday, June 25, 1993, p. 3.
8.See "Jim Brown Joins Anti-Gang Team", Chicago Sun-Times, July
21, 1993, p. 20. The Chicago Housing Authority agreed to pay Jim
Brown, from the Amer-I-Can Foundation, $100 an hour plus expenses
up to $25,000 for establishing a program for kids at risk.
9.In fact, David Dawley was also involved indirectly with this
program and was quoted in the newspapers about the program.
Dawley acts today as a consultant on gangs. Dawley was the one
who helped the Vice Lords get federal and foundation funding in
earlier Chicago gang history. Recall that Dawley claims to be
the "only white member of the Vice Lords". See also: Mark
Brunswick, 1992, "A Tale of Two Cities and the Gangs That
Couldn't Stay Straight", Star Tribune, 1A, Nov. 19.
10.The program is privately, not government, funded and the
director prefers it that way (private communication). Of course,
like many of the government funded programs too, no evaluation
research is ever reported on program success (e.g., number of
sinners reached, number of souls converted, followup: commitment
to a Christian lifestyle Lord one year later, etc).
11.Fred Williams, an ex-member of the Harlem Crips "who works at
the Cross Colours Common Ground Foundation, which helps to
rehabilitate gang members", was quoted as one L.A. source who
felt the gang truce was for real and the gangs need to be
congratulated ("Probers Hint Gangs Used L.A. Riots To Get Guns,
But Not All Agree", Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1992: section 1A,
p. 41.).
12.For a "kit" by the Mc Gruff people (National Crime Prevention
Council), see their Tools to Involve Parents in Gang Prevention
that came out in 1993, created in consultation with the Boys and
Girls Clubs and the Police Executive Research Forum. NCPC, 1700 K
Street, NW, 2nd Fl., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
13. Please note: this refers only to those who completed question
# 76A, the basic self-report control variable: "Have you ever
joined a gang". Those who answered yes were classified as selfreported gang members. Thus, we have N = 1,994 such selfreported gang members. As will be seen later in our analysis, we
can by computer analysis identify other gang members who sought
to disguise or conceal their gang membership. We have made an
analysis of this small subgroup who sought to conceal or avoid
reporting on question #76a, and the item analysis reveals a
consistent pattern of that reported in this chapter. Thus, we
have left the chapter to basically describe those who
168
specifically told us they have joined a gang. Analysis revealed
that the trends would not change by adding the small other
suspected gang members at this point in the analysis.
14. Please note: both this and the following item were modified
to isolate gender differences, the original item being used to
refer simply to parents, in the authoritarian aggression subscale
of the F-scale (see Miller, 1977: p. 415).
15. See "Atheist is Challenging Aurora's Funding of God's Gym
Program", Chicago Tribune, Section 2, p. 2 (October 10, 1995).
In this instance, well known atheist Robert I. Sherman threatened
a law suit demanding any religious component in the gang program
be dropped, or else demanding that city funding for the program
be withdrawn.
16. A founding editor of the Journal of Gang Research, Dr. Jeff
Walker, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Arkansas at
Little Rock, was particularly helpful in sharing comments and
concerns about the role of the mass media; the ideas for some of
these hypotheses therefore came from discussions with Dr. Walker
over the last couple years.
17. We are grateful to Wilson Palacios, who began as a member of
the Project GANGPINT and suggested this item, but who could not
provide data collection help with the project and was therefore
not a part of the full Task Force research process.
18. Please note: We are grateful for possible input along the
lines of this question from a practitioner who first joined the
Project GANGPINT, but could not participate.
19. Please note that this item is a direct replication of an Mscale item, measuring morale, in the Long Form of the Minnesota
Survey of Opinions (see Miller, 1977: p. 355; Rundquist and
Sletto, 1936).
20. Please note: this is a direct replication of an item from the
Dean scale for measuring alienation (see Miller, 1977, p. 355).
21. Please note: this is a direct replication of the F-scale item
measuring authoritarian stereotypy (see Miller, 1977: p. 416).
22. Please note: these have been replicated, modified, or
adapted from the Hemphill index of group dimensions (Miller,
1977: pp. 246-254).
23. While it is an insignificant finding, it is significant in
another respect as a test of psychological approaches to the
study of gangs that have tried to caste gang members in the image
of being closet homosexuals, i.e., one gender preferring the
company of the same gender engaging in highly ritualistic
169
behavior, the onset of the problem beginning typically when the
persons first becomes sexually active. Let it be clear, this is
not our belief, we simply recognize there are some wild cards in
the gang literature on this issue. What our data actually
suggests would challenge that assumption of sexual identity
confusion in the gang member population, because our data
suggests clearly gang members are no more likely than non-gang
members to want or not to want to eventually get married.
170

GANG PREVENTION AND GANG INTERVENTION

Transcription

Similar documents

MEERKAT

Sureño Norteño - Pioneer Trails

Elgiganten - Alert Metalguard

Gangs in San Jose Powerpoint

Is My Child At Risk For Gang Involvement?

annotated index - National Immigrant Justice Center

Gangster Disciples

the illuminated web family values: the gangster version

Northwest Indiana Gangs

Gangs 101 - Santa Cruz Neighbors